Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that Answer. Are the Government aware of a recent report by the Commission on Families and the Wellbeing of Children entitled, Families and the State? I am going to deposit a copy of it in the Library of the House. Do the Government accept the principle set out therein that,
	"There is a need for consistency, clarity and public information in relation to the Government's expectations of standards of care in the upbringing of children".
	Will the Government please, after consultation, provide guidelines so that parents can have greater clarity about what government expects of them and what help they are entitled to expect from government and so that teachers who are teaching young people in school can have greater confidence in what they are teaching, especially with reference to teaching young boys about the responsibilities that they will encounter if and when they become fathers?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are looking carefully at how we can reduce women offending. We have a women's offending reduction programme. Noble Lords will know that we have allocated £9.15 million, secured in the spending round of 2004, to develop and trial multi-agency, one-stop approaches in the community for women, in two areas over the next three years, in the Together Women programme. We are energetically looking at possible alternatives to imprisonment that would address equally effectively the needs of these vulnerable women and reducing the level of harm that they can cause.

Baroness Andrews: No, my Lords, I do not have those figures to hand, and I am not sure that they are available. We have made commitments to increase the supply of affordable housing through the next spending review. When we look at what is possible, we will look very hard at what we can do for rural areas.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, first, our thoughts go out to Lord Ackner's family, to whom we extend our deepest condolences.
	Lord Ackner had probably the most well-defined personality in your Lordships' House. I find it impossible to believe that he will no longer be here to make one of his characteristically disintegrating observations about the intentions or negligence of the government of the day.
	Lord Ackner freely admitted that he was not a candidate for the diplomatic corps. In his ferociously uncompromising search for the truth, he took no prisoners. Above all, he was merciless in his defence of this nation's hard-won freedoms. He was a cartographer whose maps contained no middle ground. In that respect there was much of the 17th century about him.
	Yet, there was nothing, there, cold or hard. He was, on the contrary, an immensely warm man, deeply loyal to his friends and passionately attached to Mr Burke's small platoons—to his school, to his college, to his Inn of Court and, of course, to your Lordships' House.
	Of all the qualities that Lord Ackner brought to the Bench—including a voracious appetite for work, a forensic mind of deep penetration, a wry self-deprecating sense of humour and a formidable grasp of the common law—what marked him out above all was his humanity. This was manifested in so many ways that an attempt to catalogue them would present an impossible task. But one particular theme dominates throughout. He was intensely protective of the rights of the criminally accused, and watched with growing dismay their remorseless erosion over the past 20 years.
	Lord Ackner had a deep respect for the traditions and hierarchy of the Bench and Bar, albeit on occasions disproportionately. A few years ago, I recall asking him whether he would try and influence the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, about some legislative matter. At that time Lord Ackner was in his early 80s and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, in his early 90s. Lord Ackner's response to me I recall verbatim: "Oh, I couldn't possibly do that, old boy. I'm far too junior".
	Although increasingly infirm, Lord Ackner's mind remained, as all your Lordships know, razor sharp, and his appetite for work seemingly insatiable. They say that none of us is indispensable; but in your Lordships' House Lord Ackner is as near indispensable as makes no difference.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I owe being a Queen's Counsel to Lord Ackner—which is a heavy responsibility. He said something of direct relevance to the Minister and what we are about to debate. It happened when we were in the Appellate Committee arguing a case called Pepper v. Hart. The Attorney-General was trying to persuade the Law Lords that what we say in this House should not be looked at by judges in interpreting dodgy legislation. Lord Ackner looked at him—I believe it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell of Markyate, who had to face this—and said, "Mr Attorney, is the maxim, 'think before you speak' for Ministers incompatible with good governance?" There was no reply.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 5, 11, 31 and 34, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34B and 34D in lieu.
	In moving the Motion I join with all of those who send their deepest sympathy and condolences to Lord Ackner's family. I will say a few words about the amendments to the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. We turn today to the question of whether the offence of encouraging terrorism in Clause 1 of the Terrorism Bill should include a provision relating explicitly to the glorification of terrorism. We have already debated the question extensively, so I shall try to be brief, even telegraphic, for the benefit of noble Lords opposite.
	The reasons that the Government seek to include explicit references to glorification are clear. First, it is necessary to tackle those who inspire others to become terrorists by glorifying terrorism. It is a sad fact but there are those who would be recruited to terrorism through its glorification. In ensuring that this offence includes a reference to the glorification of terrorism, this Terrorism Bill will send a strong message—a message that the press and the public and would-be terrorist proselytisers understand—that we will not tolerate those who glorify terrorism with a view to encouraging terrorist outrages.
	Secondly, because of the clear danger that arises from the glorification of terrorism, the Government made a commitment to the electorate to tackle it. The electorate voted for this Government on the basis of that manifesto. Thirdly, in tackling the glorification of terrorism we will be reinforcing our commitment to the aims and aspirations of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1624, which referred to the "glorification" of terrorism. The nations of the world were clearly prepared to accept the word when they voted to adopt a resolution that incorporates it. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on the ingenuity of his drafting in respect of the latest group of amendments that he has tabled, but by omitting any reference to glorifying or glorification they do nothing to deal with the points to which I have just referred.
	I will speak at greater length on the need to tackle those who would encourage terrorism through glorifying it, but we are all familiar with the strength of those arguments. Indeed, the arguments are so strong that, on Tuesday 14 March, amendments were tabled for consideration in the Commons which would have inserted alternative formulae for the disputed passages but would have used the word "glorifying". The amendments were tabled in the names of both Opposition parties. Though they were subsequently withdrawn, it does suggest that the objections to glorification are not as strong as some of the rhetoric suggests, as does the fact that noble Lords opposite on the Conservative Front Bench—with a couple of unexplained exceptions—abstained during your Lordships' last vote on this issue on 28 February.
	I should remind your Lordships of the point that I made when we last discussed this issue. In the oral Statement made in another place on 2 February, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made a commitment to publish a draft terrorism Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny in the first half of next year. That Bill will of course cover matters such as control orders and the outcome of the review of the definition of terrorism being carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. However, it can go further than that and provide an opportunity to look at all of our terrorism legislation. The phrase my right honourable friend used on 2 February 2006 (at col. 483 of the Official Report) was "pruning and close examination" of our terrorism legislation. That could, of course, provide an opportunity to see how the glorification provisions have worked and whether any amendment to them is required. I know that noble Lords opposite asked me to undertake to do that on the last occasion. I was happy to indicate that, but I am even happier that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary underscored the comments made by me during the debate on this issue in the other place.
	Rather than developing the arguments about the glorification provisions themselves—which, if I may say so, have been repeated on so many occasions that the words ad nauseam come to mind; but I could not course say that because your Lordships' contributions are always so delicious to enjoy—I should like to offer some observations about the constitutional position of this House and the relationship between this House and another place. This House, as I mentioned recently when we were discussing another Bill, should function as a revising Chamber. It can ask the other place to reconsider certain provisions in proposed legislation. No one can doubt that there are occasions when legislation is made significantly stronger by the scrutiny it receives here.
	But this House should not seek to oppose the will of the elected Chamber for too long, or on too weak a basis. I should remind your Lordships that when the other place's wording was overturned on 28 February, the majority against the Government in your Lordships' House was only four. Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition's Front Bench, as I indicated, did not vote on that occasion. It then returned to another place. It is worth reflecting on the passage of these provisions in the other House.
	There have been four votes on this issue in another place. In Committee, on 2 November 2005, the other place supported the glorification provisions by a majority of 16. On Report, on 9 November 2005, it voted for glorification by a majority of 25. At Commons consideration of Lords Amendments on 15 February, it voted for glorification by a majority of 38. Most recently, at the second Commons consideration of Lords Amendments on 16 March, it voted for glorification by a majority of 59 votes. So, there is a trend that one sees clearly established there. Each time the Commons has voted on this, the number in favour of including provisions on glorification has gone up. The other place has reconsidered this matter and has strengthened its position. It is now time for us to listen to the views of the elected House.
	At this point, I should perhaps invite your Lordships to remember what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said in our debate on 28 February. I know that the noble Lord always chooses his words with care. He said that,
	"on this occasion"—
	that is the last occasion—
	"your Lordships' House should send this matter back to the House of Commons for one further consideration".—[Official Report, 28/2/06; col. 144.]
	The other place has now had the advantage of that "one further consideration" and, in the light of those comments, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will be able to tell us that he is true to his word and, although we can have an interesting debate, this will end here today. That was my hope and expectation, so I was a little surprised to see the amendments that he was asking us to consider, but I know that the noble Lord does not like to disappoint.
	The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, suggested that the matter should be sent back to the other place. The other place has had that further consideration. I for one am glad that it has done so. The arguments in favour of referring to "glorification" are in the Government's view totally convincing and the constitutional duty of this House to listen to the other place is equally clear.
	We believe that following the last vote on this, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, made it clear that he was interested to hear about the undertaking, to see how it would go. I hope that with this fulsome explanation I have entirely satisfied him, to such an extent that he need not trouble to rise from his seat, if we divide on this. He and all those on his Benches can sit in great comfort while the Bill goes through safely on its way to another place. With that, and in great expectation, I beg to move.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 5, 11, 31 and 34, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34B and 34D in lieu.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the Terrorism Bill is now coming back from the other place for the second round of ping-pong. I have put down a series of new amendments in lieu. They have not been put down because of any intrinsic merit, but to make it clear that while we wish to get rid of the references to "glorification" in the Bill, we are also anxious to avoid deadlock.
	We have no wish to force the Government to use the Parliament Act on a Bill that contains a number of useful anti-terrorist provisions, even if we were in a position to do so, which I doubt we are today. I note in particular the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, who regularly attends when there is likely to be a serious vote from the Conservative Benches.
	We remain deeply concerned with the Government's insistence on including "glorification" in the Bill somewhere or somehow. I briefly want to explore why the Government want it and whether there is any reason for doing so beyond saving face following their commitment to making the glorification of terrorism an offence.
	There are two possible interpretations involved in including references to glorification in the Bill in the form that the Government have done. The first is the meaning most likely to be applied by the court—that glorification is simply given as one example of the way in which terrorism can be indirectly encouraged. It does not, therefore, extend the meaning of indirect encouragement. If so, it follows that no one will be convicted who would not have been convicted simply on the basis of indirect encouragement even if there was no express reference to "glorification" in the Bill. In that case the references to "glorification" would be harmless, but also pointless.
	The second interpretation is more seriously worrying—that the references to "glorification" add something to the meaning of indirect encouragement that would not be there otherwise. So people could be convicted of an offence that would not have been an offence within the ordinary meaning of the words "indirect encouragement".
	If that is the correct interpretation, it follows that there is enormous uncertainty about the effect of the Bill. One would have to consider what is the meaning in the context of "glorification", and what is the meaning in the context of the word "emulate". How can it be possible to justify treating as a criminal offence glorification that does not in the ordinary meaning of the word amount to indirect encouragement of terrorism? Would that not be an unacceptable restraint on freedom of expression? If the second interpretation is correct, the references to glorification would not be harmless; I believe that they would be unacceptable.
	In moving her Motion, the Minister has not made the position altogether clear and I hope that she will be able to give a more direct answer to my questions when she winds up. If she is saying, "You have nothing to worry about because glorification here is simply given as an example and it does not extend the meaning of indirect encouragement of terrorism", that would of course be welcome. The trouble is that, even so, it is not for her to decide on the interpretation. The inclusion of references to glorification make the second interpretation possible. As long as that is a possibility, many people will fear that any statement that they make will be an offence under the Bill if, for example, it expresses sympathy with the activities, past or present, of others that fall within the extremely broad definition of terrorism, even though that statement carries no inference that anyone becoming aware of it should go and do likewise.
	Because of the possibility that that could be the case, the inclusion of references to glorification is not just unnecessary but harmful. The Government should recognise that and accept the removal of the references. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to Motion A, Amendment A1, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 31, do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 5, 11 and 34, but do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 34B and 34D in lieu, and do propose Amendments 34E to 34J in lieu.—(Lord Goodhart.)

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I quite understand the noble Baroness's concern about the time that we have spent on this and the fact that we are going over much of the same ground, but I hope that she will feel that there was something to be gained from our proceedings when we last considered this matter, even if it was only the amusement or astonishment of those who read the Division List and found that I was in the Division Lobby with the noble Lords, Lord Ahmed and Lord Lester of Herne Hill. That suggests that there is a rather wide coalition against Her Majesty's Government on this point. However, each of us was looking at it from a slightly different point of view.
	For my part, I am still not happy about the definition even of terrorism that we use. There is a great deal of work to be done on better defining terrorism. Like the noble Baroness, I have no taste for those who glorify terrorism, but I do not think that she dealt terribly well with the points which I put to her the last time that we discussed this. Many of us feel that the celebration of the Easter Rising of 1916 come pretty close to the glorification of terrorism. That leaves a lot of us unhappy. At the other end of the spectrum, I notice that a film is shortly to be released that has as its theme a masked desperado who commits an enormous number of terrorist acts, finishing up in the blowing up of Parliament at the end of the film. Is that glorification of terrorism, or is it just rather silly fiction? I know that the Attorney-General will have the sole right of instituting a prosecution under those provisions.
	In a way, that makes me even more uneasy. It gives people the feeling that some people will be able to glorify some sorts of terrorism and some people will not, although there might be no difference in what is in the legislation, but there would be a difference in what was in the mind of—I will not say the Attorney-General—any attorney.
	However, for what it is worth, I would say to the noble Baroness that I recognise when we have kicked this around for long enough and when we have tramped through the Lobbies for long enough, and so I will not be tramping through a Lobby today.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I have made the point before that it refers to William Wallace in Scotland, to the Welsh nationalists in 1937 who blew up the bombing range in the Lleyn Peninsula, to the Easter Rebellion, and to any movement throughout the world—as I said, this applies to the whole world— where a movement or organisation takes up arms against the recognised government. We may support that movement, but in these terms we would still be glorifying it.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene briefly. Surely when we talk about the present circumstances the point is that something like the Easter Uprising might well be covered if the IRA as of now was asking people to emulate it. That is what makes the difference; it is not about the ANC, William Wallace or any of the other examples given by the noble Lord.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I have had the experience of defending an IRA person who was moved not by the Easter Rebellion, but by the words of Robert Emmet on the scaffold in 1797. If you take anywhere at any time, you can see how a person may be incited by stories from the past to commit terrorist acts. Consequently, the Easter Rebellion is certainly still a matter that could be—if the Attorney-General of the day so decided—the subject of a criminal prosecution and investigation.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the noble Baroness anticipated that I had followed her instructions in her opening remarks by remaining in a sedentary position. I think that my response to that is, in the words of a famous English novelist of the middle half of the 20th century, "Up to a point".
	As I understand it, from the events in another place last Thursday, and from what the noble Baroness has said today, the Government are essentially making five points about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and, in effect, the amendments that we tabled at an earlier stage.
	The first is that our definitions—if I may refer to them collectively—provide an exhaustive definition of indirect encouragement and not an illustrative one, with the implication that it is more desirable to have an illustrative definition than a comprehensive definition. Secondly, in any case, the use of the words "describe or refer", which we have always preferred to "glorification", means that the Bill would not catch glorification. Thirdly, if we were at this stage to expunge the expression "glorification", the courts would conclude that the expression "describe or refer" would not include glorification. I see that the noble Baroness nods, so she is with me so far. The fourth point made by the Government, in another place and in your Lordships' House, is that glorification is in the manifesto. The final point is that it is a question of which House should prevail.
	Perhaps I can make some comments, reasonably telegraphically, about each one of those. First, on the exhaustive definition versus illustration, it is quite true that our definition seeks to be comprehensive or exhaustive, but in law that is the whole point of a definition. It should seek to cover all the issues and it is up to the courts, armed with a definition, to do their best to ensure that a jury understands clearly what the law is.
	The Government do not purport to provide any definition of "indirect encouragement". In Clause 1(4), they simply present us with a single illustration—the illustration of glorification—emphasising in all the speeches that have been made by Ministers that, of course, there are many other illustrations that could influence a court in deciding whether someone is indirectly encouraging or not. We regard that as deeply defective.
	First, glorification is a monumentally imprecise concept and there is nothing in the interpretation section of the Bill that undermines that assertion in any way. Indirect encouragement is not like the famous illustration of a duck. If it walks like a duck, if it looks like a duck and if it quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. That is not the nature of indirect encouragement. The courts need real guidance on what it means.
	Secondly, in my submission, even if glorification appeared in the Bill as a definition, it would be too narrow. There may be circumstances in which terrorism is merely described by a speaker or referred to by a speaker where the public are likely to infer that which is described or referred to as conduct that should be emulated by them. The interpretation that we and the Liberal Democrats have consistently put to your Lordships' House throughout the passage of the Bill is that glorification is too narrow.
	The other defect of the Government's approach was extremely well illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. It is not consistent with the rule of law to deprive the courts of a clear definition of law. Indeed, it is inconsistent with Article 7 of the Convention on Human Rights. Potentially, an even more serious defect concerns the behaviour of the prosecutor, the DPP. The fact that there is no definition, but just a single illustration which is not comprehensive, gives the DPP enormous scope to decide whether or not to prosecute. It is essentially an unfettered discretion. The Bill replaces the rule of law by an unfettered, absolute discretion to be exercised by the prosecutorial authorities. That is deeply undesirable, especially in an area like this.
	I shall deal briefly with the remaining issues that the Government have raised. From what I have already said, I hope your Lordships will conclude that the words in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, or in the amendments that we have tabled in the past, plainly capture glorification, and that because we have said that, time and time again, there can be no question but that the courts would also conclude that "refer or describe" includes glorification.
	The manifesto has been covered so many times that I hesitate to remind the Minister that her point about the word "glorification" appearing in that document has no foundation. It is true that the words "glorification" and "condoning" appeared in the manifesto, but they describe an offence. By the time the Bill came along, "condoning" had disappeared and "glorification" was merely an illustration of a new offence of indirect encouragement. The Government have no basis for saying that your Lordships' House is bound because this is a manifesto matter.
	Finally, there is the question of the relative role of the two Houses. I accept that we are a scrutinising House and that, in normal circumstances, and after doing our best to persuade the Government otherwise, we should concede. There are of course occasions when we have to stand our ground.
	At the early stages of the Bill, I had thought that it would come to that, but two things influenced me to think otherwise. First, if this Bill is subjected to the Parliament Act, it will be delayed for nine months, and we need this Bill. Secondly, as the noble Baroness said, the Secretary of State has given an undertaking to reconsider next year all the measures on terrorism that are on the statute book and to introduce a new, comprehensive measure to replace them. That will give your Lordships an opportunity to consider a range of issues that have given us deep discomfort during the passage of this Bill: the definition of terrorism, the use of the word "glorification" and so on.
	Bearing that mind, and if the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, chooses to put this matter to a vote, I shall recommend to my colleagues that they abstain.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we have had a debate that, although somewhat shorter than on previous occasions, was still undoubtedly full. I took the opposite view from the noble Baroness's in that I welcomed everything in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, except the final sentence.
	Let me make it clear at the start that we are not trying to kick this Bill into touch and force the Government to rely on the Parliament Act. All we are doing today is asking the House of Commons to consider the new amendments tabled in my name. I have to say that I remain concerned about the inclusion of the word "glorification" in the Bill, and the noble Baroness has not done anything to reduce my fears on the matter. She said that the references to glorification were merely an illustration, but went on to say that they were needed as guidance—no doubt, guidance to the courts. That carries the inference that the addition of the word "glorification" will mean that people who would not have been convicted merely on the basis of indirect encouragement of terrorism will be convicted under this Bill. That leaves me at least as worried as I was in the beginning.
	The concern is not to any great extent that people who should not be convicted will be convicted. My concern is that there will be an inhibition of legitimate expression and debate. That concerns us very seriously. In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said, and the expressions from the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and the right reverend Prelate, I cannot say that we are expecting to win a vote this time. Indeed, I did not expect to win a vote on the previous occasion. I am even less confident this time.
	Nevertheless, I believe that we need to put on record our opposition to the inclusion of the word "glorification", which we believe will cause significant trouble over the next few years. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House on this matter.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, that question will be debated at enormous length as the Bill goes through the House. To raise it now in my opening address and discuss it would distract us from the work in hand.
	The Bill delivers on those three manifesto commitments. It carries forward most of the substance of the 1998 Act, but does so with important changes made in the light of experience. It builds on what has been achieved while recognising the need for the Assembly to be able to achieve its goals more quickly and more effectively. The first important change is to replace the existing Assembly with a separate executive and legislature. Since 2002, the Assembly Ministers and the staff working for them have been known as the "Welsh Assembly Government". Within the constraint of still being legally one corporate body, the government arm and the legislative arm have increasingly been operating as separate entities.
	The legal separation of the two was one of the recommendations of the Richard commission appointed by the Welsh Assembly Government to review the operation of the devolution arrangements. I should like at this point to pay a warm tribute—it is a great pleasure to do so—to my noble friend Lord Richard for his achievement in producing a most thorough and most influential report. He has served Wales with wisdom and vision.
	I probably do not need to dwell on the issue of separation, since we all agree that it is necessary. It is worth noting that the vast bulk of the Bill relates to the separation. Some 93 clauses of the Bill are re-enacted with only minor modifications from the 1998 Act. A further 47 clauses have been included to give effect to the separation. I welcome the fact that so much of the Bill commands cross-party support. The Bill will set up the Welsh Assembly Government as an entity in their own right. The current executive functions of the Assembly will transfer to the Welsh Ministers on separation. An Assembly Commission, similar in nature to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, will be set up to work on behalf of the 60 Assembly Members. The Assembly itself will be given much greater freedom to determine the way in which the legislature should operate.
	The second significant change is to the electoral arrangements. The Government believe that it is fundamental that a constituency member, of whatever party, is elected to represent the interests of all their constituents. At the same time the Government recognise, to the benefit of other parties in Wales, that a degree of proportional representation is necessary in order to ensure that the outcome of the election properly and fairly reflects the will of the voters.
	The Government therefore believe that the current additional member system, which combines both the constituency link and an element of proportionality, has served the people of Wales well. Nevertheless, there have been some unforeseen and undesirable consequences. Because constituency candidates often also stand on their parties' regional lists, it is possible for candidates who are defeated in a constituency election nevertheless to emerge victorious as regional members. In Clwyd West at the 2003 election, this resulted in no less than three of the defeated constituency candidates re-emerging as regional members.
	Moreover, there is nothing to stop regional members from targeting the constituency in which they were defeated, to the exclusion of other parts of the region they are elected to represent. No fewer than 15 regional members have located their offices in the constituency in which they were previously defeated. Dual candidacy is confusing for the electorate. If they have rejected a candidate at the ballot box, how can that candidate still win in the same election? Voters have a right to reject a particular candidate.
	Furthermore, the targeting of constituencies by regional members undermines the very purpose of regional representation. The role of regional members is to represent all the people in their region, rather than targeting the bulk of their work and resources on roughly one eighth of it.
	That is why the Government are modifying the additional member system—retaining both the clear constituency link and the element of proportionality, but removing the anomaly of dual candidacy which provides defeated constituency candidates with a safety net and denies the voters a proper say. The ban on dual candidacy will mean that candidates will have to choose between standing for a constituency or standing for a region; and that applies equally to all parties and all candidates.
	The Government—

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I reassure the noble Lord that I have no sleights of hand. I have not read the quotations he refers to; I have not seen them. But I would like to draw the House's attention to the fact that I have been interrupted twice, both by Scotsmen, when we are talking about the government of Wales.
	The Government are grateful to the Constitution Committee for its recognition that the proposal to ban dual candidacy is a manifesto commitment. We also note the committee's recommendation that the Government should set out clearly what alternative approaches were considered and why these options were rejected in favour of the dual candidacy ban.
	The Government agree that it is important for the House to be informed on this point, and we therefore intend to address this recommendation in detail in our response to the committee's report.
	I now turn to the Assembly's legislative powers. In doing so I should like to acknowledge and welcome the substantial contribution which the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, and his committee have made in considering the constitutional issues raised by the Bill. We shall take very careful note of all their observations.
	I very much welcome the Constitution Committee's clear conclusion that,
	"the delegation of law making powers to an elected body is indeed very different from delegating them to Ministers".
	Since 1999, the Assembly has been able to shape much subordinate legislation in a distinctive way so as to give effect to its own policies. However, it has remained dependent on the timetable and priorities for legislation in this Parliament in order to achieve anything which required either changes to primary legislation or new provision.
	Moreover, the approach to giving the Assembly legislative powers has been inconsistent. Some Bills have prescribed a great deal of detail and others have given the Assembly more discretion.
	In June 2005, the Government set out in their White Paper Better Governance for Wales, a three-stage approach to tackling this issue. The first stage was a commitment to draft parliamentary Bills in a way which gives the Assembly wider and more permissive powers to determine the detail of how the provisions should be implemented in Wales. These so-called framework powers were a key recommendation of the Richard commission—the famous paragraph 13.2—and were the brainchild of my noble friend Lord Rowlands. I pay tribute to him for his work on this.
	Framework powers are not dependent on the passage of this Bill. Indeed, one such provision, Clause 17 of the NHS Redress Bill, has recently completed its passage though this House. However, in recognition of the breadth of framework powers, the Bill includes a provision to ensure that they are exercised not by Welsh Ministers but by the Assembly as a whole following separation.
	The mechanism set out in Part 3 of the Bill is the second stage, developing the existing devolution settlement, which was approved by referendum in 1997. Parliament will decide on a case-by-case basis whether to give the Assembly power to legislate by Assembly measure on particular, clearly defined matters. The Assembly will be able to request that competence on its own initiative by seeking an Order in Council.
	I have made available and placed in the Library of the House information on how the Government envisage the mechanism in Part 3 of the Bill would work. The Government attach great importance to Parliament having the opportunity to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny of any proposed Order in Council seeking to grant the Assembly legislative competence. The papers placed in the Library include examples of the memorandums that would accompany any proposed Order in Council. I am fully aware that a number of noble Lords are concerned that they should have a proper opportunity to contribute to this process. It is of course for this House to consider how that may best be done.
	The Welsh Affairs Committee in another place and the relevant Assembly committee may also be involved in pre-legislative scrutiny. It is the Government's hope that such scrutiny can be arranged in a concurrent and complementary way. The Constitution Committee has made some constructive proposals on this issue and I am sure that the House will wish to consider them most carefully. In this House, statutory instruments are also sometimes considered in Grand Committee, which allows any Member to contribute.
	These are all options. I stress again that this is a matter for the House to determine. An Order in Council would only have the effect of altering the Assembly's legislative competence. The substance of any changes to the law would be contained in the Assembly measures passed by the Assembly itself. Clause 97 of the Bill sets out the minimum Assembly scrutiny procedures, which proposed Assembly measures must generally undergo before they can be passed by the Assembly and then be enacted.
	Part 3 does represents not a fundamental change to the current devolution settlement, but rather a development of the settlement that will make it easier for the Assembly to deliver for the people of Wales. Just as at present, it would be for Parliament to determine what additional powers the Assembly may require. While the Assembly will be given greater discretion over the detail of Welsh legislation, Parliament will remain in charge. The development of the devolution settlement will help the Assembly break through the legislative logjam at Westminster. The Assembly has to wait for many years in many cases for its requests for primary legislation to be met. This has been the case even with non-controversial legislation such as the Bill to create a single public services ombudsman for Wales.
	Part 3 of the Bill therefore continues the process of giving the Assembly greater discretion to legislate on matters that are within devolved areas of responsibility. It also allows the initiative to come from Wales to seek measure-making powers. However, these powers will be granted only where Parliament agrees that this should be the case.
	Part 4 of the Bill provides for the Assembly to acquire full law-making powers over all devolved subjects without further recourse to Parliament. This is the third stage, as set out in the White Paper. However, because this is a fundamental constitutional change, the Bill ensures that it can take place only if it has been approved by the people of Wales in a referendum. Clause 102 sets out clearly that the referendum is to be whether the Assembly Act provisions should come into force.
	In this way we hope to settle for a generation the distracting debate over the extent of the Assembly's powers. By providing a mechanism for achieving primary powers, the onus will be on the supporters of change to win the argument. Instead of a constant debate about the Assembly's constitutional arrangements, the challenge will instead be to deliver the right policies for the people of Wales and to rise to the challenge set out in the Bill.
	Supporters of primary powers for the Assembly have argued for a direct move to primary powers, as recommended by the Richard commission. The Government do not believe that such a proposal would command general support among the people of Wales at this time. As the recent ICM poll showed, support for devolution has consolidated since 1999, and a growing number of people support greater powers for the Assembly, but supporters of full law-making powers are still in a minority. In the Government's view, the day when a referendum on full law-making powers would pass is still some years away.
	The Government therefore believe that it is right to proceed with a referendum on primary powers only when there is broad cross-party consensus in favour of such a move. That is why the Bill provides that a referendum could be triggered only with the support of two-thirds of all Assembly Members and of both Houses of Parliament. An unsuccessful referendum on primary powers would do profound damage to the whole devolution settlement. It is therefore right that we proceed with caution.
	Parts 3 and 4, together with the changes to the electoral arrangements in Part 1, are clearly the most novel and contentious aspects of the Bill. They are also the provisions that have had the most thorough scrutiny in another place. During more than 27 hours allocated for scrutiny at Committee and Report stages, 19 hours were devoted to those provisions.
	Part 5 contains the financial provisions. Its key provision is in Clause 116, which creates the Welsh Consolidated Fund. That is to ensure that there is a "neutral" account where funds can be held. Welsh Ministers will be able to obtain payments out of the Welsh Consolidated Fund only if they are authorised or deemed to be authorised by Budget resolutions of the Assembly.
	Part 6 contains further necessary provisions, relating, for example, to the treatment of public records. It also makes detailed provision for the transition from the current Assembly, as constituted by the Government of Wales Act 1998, to a separate executive and legislature. Those changes are to come about for the May 2007 Assembly elections.
	To tackle the problem of low turnout in Assembly elections, the Bill also enables the Assembly Commission to promote awareness of the devolved system of government and of the Assembly elections. This it may do either directly or by making grants to others—in particular, to the Electoral Commission.
	In conclusion, the Bill will enable the Assembly and the Welsh Assembly Government to serve the people of Wales more effectively. They will have a legislature which can hold the Welsh Assembly Government to account more clearly. They will have an Assembly which can pass laws which are tailored to Welsh needs and developed and debated close to the people whom they are meant to benefit. At the same time, the balance of authority between Westminster and the Assembly will be maintained, with Parliament being the ultimate arbiter.
	I finish with a short poem by that great Welsh poet, R S Thomas. It was first published in 1946 in the magazine Wales, edited by Keidrych Rhys. I read it so that we can compare Thomas's bleak and desolate vision of Wales at that time with the self-confidence and vitality of modern-day Wales. Appropriately, it is entitled, "The Old Language".
	"England, what have you done to make the speech
	My fathers used a stranger to my lips,
	An offence to the ear, a shackle on the tongue
	That would fit new thoughts to an abiding tune?
	Answer me now. The workshop where they wrought
	Stands idle, and thick dust covers their tools.
	The blue metal of streams, the copper and gold
	Seams in the wood are all unquarried; the leaves'
	Intricate filigree falls, and who shall renew
	Its brisk pattern? When spring wakens the hearts
	Of the young children to sing, what song shall be theirs?".
	I commend the Bill to the House.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his polished presentation of a very unpolished Bill. On the poem by RS Thomas, The Old Language, I remind the Minister that the Opposition passed the Welsh Language Act 1993, which did a great deal of service to the old language.
	There has been a positive development in my party's thinking and attitude to devolution since the advent of our new leader, David Cameron. This pleases me and my noble friends, because I have long believed that there was considerable scope to improve on the original devolution settlement for Wales. Of course, the Labour Government appear to share that view in that they have now produced the Bill before us, which is the curiously enigmatic—some might even say devious—sequel to the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the outcome of seven years' experience of its operation. It is also the result of extensive consideration, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and his commission, whose main recommendations at box 13.5, which might have provided a firmer, more principled basis for legislation, have been influential but have not been substantially accepted by the Government, except for one recommendation on the separation of the Executive and the legislature. The Bill was preceded by the White Paper, Better Governance for Wales, which the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs examined. Some of our own committees have also had a hard look at the Bill. The Constitution Committee is only the latest to report, and I hope that its members will contribute their wisdom to our debates. There is therefore no shortage of background material to assist us in our deliberations.
	As the Minister said, the Bill contains repeats or adaptations of much that was in the 1998 Act, as well as some fresh proposals, such as the separation of the legislature and the Executive, which are broadly welcome. There is a cross-party consensus that it is high time that the National Assembly and the Assembly Government ceased to be tarred with the same brush. They should be separated, and should be perceived to be so by the public. Then there are some 24 clauses that are novel and controversial. They are largely contained in Parts 3 and 4 of the Bill, and deal with the transfer of primary legislative powers to the Assembly.
	As the Explanatory Notes state on page 62:
	"It should be noted that, with minor exceptions . . . the Bill does not itself confer additional legislative powers on the Assembly: rather, it provides a mechanism whereby such powers can be conferred on a case by case basis as appropriate, with Parliamentary consent".
	That is a fair and accurate statement of the Bill's intent, especially in Part 3, but the Government have not always adhered to it. They have claimed much more for the Bill when it suits them. At the Bill's launch on 8 December last year, the Secretary of State said that the Bill would,
	"give the Assembly more powers, more opportunity and more scope to make decisions".
	But your Lordships will be aware that the mechanism to secure those powers is complex and hedged with hurdles. The ultimate guide to the maze, and controller of entries and exits, is the Secretary of State, whose minatory shadow is everywhere in this Bill.
	At times the Bill reads more like a centralising than a devolutionary measure. The fundamental question that many ask is why the Government do not propose a direct grant of primary legislative powers, particularly in the devolved areas of government, as recommended by the commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. The Government's answer is that this would require the people's endorsement in a referendum and they do not think that they could win it. As recently as Third Reading in the other place, the Secretary of State, Mr Peter Hain, said:
	"I have no doubt that if a referendum were held today, it would be lost".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/2/06; col. 209.]
	That is in spite of the glowing achievements reeled off by the Minister at the start of his speech.
	The Secretary of State's statement read very oddly on the eve of the St David's Day opening of the new Assembly building and the publication of that curious ICM poll for the BBC, which was optimistically interpreted as showing a total of 55 per cent of the 1,000-people sample in favour of a more powerful—39 per cent—or independent—16 per cent—Assembly. Was the Secretary of State genuinely defeatist, which is out of character, in his view of referendum prospects or was his caution an inspired response to the unhappiness of his own Welsh Labour MPs at the prospect of redundancy as more powers passed from Westminster to Cardiff Bay?
	I am not surprised at the Government's lack of confidence, considering the narrowness of the majority in 1997—0.6 per cent—and the Assembly Government's disappointing record of achievement in certain areas since then, especially health. The Assembly's standing with the Welsh electorate is prima facie precarious. The Secretary of State's indications about a referendum and the consequences are indicative of that precariousness.
	In Committee in the other place, the Secretary of State confessed that he was "haunted"—that is the word that he used—by the 1979 referendum, which the Callaghan government lost by four to one. Mr Hain went to say:
	"I am also haunted by the narrowness of the vote in 1997. Unlike 1979, the Labour party was not bitterly divided on the question".
	He might have added that it was supported by Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats. He went on:
	"I do not think that we should go anywhere near a referendum that could produce those circumstances. That is why I built in carefully a two-thirds vote in the Assembly".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/1/06; col. 1399.]
	The Secretary of State was of course referring to the provision made for a referendum in Part 4 on the grant of primary legislative powers over a broad range of responsibilities without the need for further recourse to Parliament. Two-thirds of Assembly Members and both Houses of Parliament must support the proposal before a referendum on the issue can take place at all. Most people would agree that a positive final outcome to Part 4 is a very distant prospect. However, the Government have not succumbed to their fears and given up entirely on devolution—far from it. As we have heard, they have provided in Part 3 for the National Assembly to gain legislative powers in specific areas by Orders in Council, approved by both Houses.
	The novel procedure by which the Assembly secures and Parliament endorses such orders, bearing in mind that orders are ultimately unamendable, has yet to be satisfactorily defined and refined. There will be pre-legislative scrutiny of the proposed order in draft form and of some explanatory memorandum/documentation, but doubt and uncertainty persist about the precise procedure involved, and its scope and acceptability. I refer noble Lords to col. 168 of the Official Report of the other place on 28 February, if they wish to savour the confusion that still exists.
	The Constitution Committee's eighth report also highlights the staggering complexity of this procedure and the uncertainty attached to it. The ultimate result is intended to be Assembly measures that will have the same force as Acts of Parliament. The Transport (Wales) Bill recently passed by your Lordships has been cited as an illustrative example of what the Government have in mind, as I noted at the time of the Bill's final passage through this House on 14 February.
	My main point now is that it has been established in the other place that the process of devolving primary legislative powers, by Order in Council, is open-ended and seemingly endless. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, described the procedure's possible operation in his evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee. He said:
	"It is a device to avoid having to come to Westminster to ask for primary powers to be formally devolved. It is quite an interesting device".
	It is quite a good device in that sense, because you get a situation in which Cardiff ends up with greater powers. He continued:
	"Westminster can say they have not devolved primary legislative powers, but depending on the way in which the Order in Council procedure is used, it could in effect be a concealed grant of almost a direct legislative competence down to Cardiff".
	The Father of the House of Commons, the right honourable Alan Williams, referred in Committee to this piecemeal devolution of powers as "salami slicing".
	In short, the very extensive transfer of legislative power that might be achieved after a successful referendum under Part 4 could be reached over time without a referendum by repeated use of the provisions under Part 3—it is as clear as it could be. If that is so, and I have no reason to doubt it, there is a strong argument, consistent with the logic of the Government and the Bill, for having a referendum before the Order in Council procedure for devolving power comes into effect—assuming, of course, that the procedure has parliamentary approval. This would be a referendum not on the continued existence of the Assembly, but on the bestowal of primary legislative powers. The Government may be fearful of the consequences of even a limited referendum of this sort, but the issue will have to be faced sooner or later. The Government have promised a referendum to the electorate under Part 4. Part 3, surely, is not simply a ruse or device to avoid a referendum and to achieve the transfer of powers by other means. That would be blatantly dishonest. I am sure that the Government would not wish to be guilty of that.
	Meanwhile, the Government continue to increase the powers of the Assembly to make subordinate legislation. The NHS Redress Bill, to which the Minister referred, is mentioned on page 5 of the Explanatory Notes as an example of a very broad framework provision; indeed, it attracted the critical attention of our Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. There is no requirement in this Bill for such enabling framework provisions, unpopular as they are with legislators, to have general endorsement. They will have to be debated individually as and when they arrive, but I feel sure that debated they will be.
	Another aspect of the Bill is causing concern, particularly to the smaller parties. It is the proposal to prohibit candidates from standing both in constituencies and on the regional lists that provide the additional Members of the Assembly. They must choose one route to election or the other. As the Labour Party has no regional list Members in Wales, the Government's proposal affects the minority parties most severely and is regarded as a somewhat mean and spiteful tactic to handicap them. The independent Electoral Commission is critical of the Government's proposal, while Sir John Arbuthnott, who examined the issue in Scotland and considered the Welsh advice in that context, found no reason to recommend the change. He said:
	"Preventing dual candidacy would be undemocratic. It would place an unnecessary restriction on the democratic rights of individual candidates, parties and local electors to have as unrestricted a choice as possible in an election".
	Meanwhile, the Government have actually quoted Sir John, as they have quoted the noble Lord, Lord Steel, as being somehow supportive of their line on this.
	We now know that the Government agree with Arbuthnott for Scotland, but not for Wales. Replying to the debate on the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, to ban dual candidacy at Scottish parliamentary elections, the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, said that,
	"there is no prospect of government support for reopening the Scotland Act for this or any other purpose".—[Official Report, 3/3/06; col. 504.]
	He went on to discourage his noble friend from proceeding further with his Bill. I am bound to say that there is a whiff of inconsistency here. Why should a principle be valid in Scotland but not in Wales?

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I start by saying what a pleasure it was to hear the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, after his long absence from this House. He looked back a mere 19 years, but I look back more than 30 years to the time when, in Cardigan Mart on the borders of our respective constituencies, he and I on the last Monday of the election campaign used to address the farmers of Pembrokeshire and Cardigan. It seems a long time ago. It is nice to have the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, back here active after so long a gap.
	As there is a good deal in the Bill that I will be criticising, I shall start by identifying the one section that has my total support, which is Part 2, which affects the formal separation of the executive and legislative branches of the Welsh Assembly. There may be points of detail that need consideration, but the principle is clearly right. I shall have something to say about Part 1 later, but I now turn to Part 3. I listened with considerable interest to the not so stealthy criticism by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, of that part of the Bill.
	It may not be immediately obvious to noble Lords who have not followed exchanges in another place exactly what would be the consequences if Parliament approves Part 3 of the Bill. I believe that the constitutional and practical impacts of the Bill, if passed, are so significant that every Member of this House should be made aware of them. If Clauses 92 to 101 were to be passed, primary legislation would cease to be the responsibility of Westminster or of the Welsh Assembly. The responsibility would be replaced by a system of government through Orders in Council.
	On 28 February, during the Third Reading debate in another place, the Minister, Nick Ainger, described the process and corrected some misunderstandings that had arisen in Committee. He said:
	"The Welsh Assembly will propose an Order in Council which will then be subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny, when it can be amended. After that, the Assembly will consider any changes and introduce a draft Order in Council. The draft order will then be laid before the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and the normal affirmative procedures, both here and in the House of Lords, will apply".
	The next sentence of the Minister's remarks and the exchange that followed should be engraved in our minds during our later proceedings. He said:
	"It is not the measures that will come before Parliament in any form, but the policy statement justifying why the Order in Council is required. There will be a substantial amount of information attached to that, and it will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny".
	My honourable friend Dominic Grieve commented that,
	"it sounds even worse than I originally thought. In Committee I understood that although the House would vote on the draft Order in Council, there would be an opportunity for the House to scrutinise the actual draft measure. The Minister shakes his head and says that that is not the case".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/2/06; cols.162-3.]
	What that means is that the actual measure that will go through the Assembly will not come before us, but the Orders in Council, which reference to Part 3 of the Select Committee on the Constitution report will show are very brief and uninformative, will be seen. It seems to me that this is a procedure that we will have to probe very closely in Committee. Indeed, the case for doing that was strongly reinforced by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Richard.
	There are other reasons for saying that the process is flawed. Clauses 92 to 101 make it glaringly apparent that the exercise of power supposedly to be transferred to the Assembly will remain entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State. Clause 94(7) allows the Secretary of State the right to refuse a draft order proposed by the Assembly. Ministers lay great emphasis on the effectiveness of pre-legislative scrutiny. But it is very hard to see how pre-legislative scrutiny can be effective in these circumstances. In any event, pre-legislative scrutiny should be an aid to consideration by both Houses and not a substitute for it.
	Furthermore, the devil is in the detail, and it is bizarre to imagine that the detail can be adequately dealt with by the arrangements that I have described. The hour-and-a-half debate under the affirmative resolution procedure on a brief order and a measure that will not come before the House, but which will be based just on a policy statement, is likely to be a curious and unproductive occasion. My right honourable friend John Gummer was surely right when he argued that legislative activity is at the heart of what Parliament does, and either the Assembly should do it or Parliament should. It would be unacceptable for no one to do it or for it to be done inadequately because of the strains that the Select Committee on the Constitution fears may be placed on the Assembly.
	I suggest that we should not be prepared to surrender the power to scrutinise and enact legislation to a system that very considerably increases the power of the Executive. Part 3 of the Bill is not a modest measure. It is a measure aimed at conferring primary legislative competence on the Assembly on a piecemeal basis. As the right honourable Alan Williams, Labour Member and Father of the House of Commons, put it at Second Reading—and my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy referred to this—
	"under the Bill as drafted, which provides for a succession of orders, the full legislative objective could be achieved without a referendum . . . a succession of orders could achieve that objective".
	He also drew attention to what he described as the Trojan Horse clause, because:
	"if just one non-controversial, innocuous order is passed, a policy area is opened. Once that happens, the Assembly is free to introduce new measures with different policy objectives, without having to go for a further order. It is a form of creeping devolution".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/1/06; col. 53.]
	My noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy has already quoted the evidence of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, to the Welsh Affairs Committee, so I do not need to do that again. But as he said, it is an interesting device and it could in effect be a concealed grant of almost a direct legislative competence down to Cardiff. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is absolutely right about that, but it would not be Westminster that controls the process so much as the Secretary of State, and that is where the real control would rest. It is going to be very difficult to sort out the fundamental flaws in Part 3 of the Bill.
	Part 4 of the Bill deals with the possibility that the Welsh Assembly will be given primary legislative powers if consent is obtained by means of a referendum. The Secretary of State for Wales has said that the Bill presents the opportunity to settle for a long time the constitutional status of Wales. It does northing of the sort. On the contrary, it places a huge question mark over the constitutional status of Wales. While pretending to offer primary powers subject to approval by means of a referendum, the offer of a referendum is rendered almost meaningless by conditions designed to ensure that it cannot take place until some distant time in the future when the Secretary of State and those who share his views can be absolutely certain of getting the result that they want. No referendum can be held until the Secretary of State himself decides that what he judges to be "adequate public consultation" has taken place. It has to be triggered, as we have heard, by a vote supported by two-thirds of all Assembly Members, and it has to be approved by both Houses of Parliament by affirmative Motion. Mr Hain has made it very clear that he is determined not to have a referendum for fear that he might not get the result that he wants. That is not a democratic approach.
	I opposed the devolution scheme put to Parliament in the 1970s, and the people of Wales supported my position in a referendum by an overwhelming majority. Two decades later, I was equally opposed to the legislative scheme that set up the present Welsh Assembly, albeit by the narrowest of margins. But the Welsh people gave it their approval. From that moment on it has been my constant belief that the sensible way forward was to try to make devolution work effectively for the good of the people of Wales. That is not just my view; it is also the policy of the Conservative Party.
	Many would agree with Nick Bourne, the Conservative Leader of the Assembly, that the present situation is not sustainable in the long term. There are those who want to go forward. There are others who would like to scrap the whole scheme and abolish the Assembly. I do not share the latter point of view. Abolition would certainly not create a situation sustainable in the long term but would simply trigger a fresh campaign for a new Assembly and reopen old wounds. It would generate damaging tensions in Wales and create a situation that could be extremely difficult for a future Conservative government seeking to exercise their authority in Wales. That is an alarming prospect, but what is almost equally alarming is that, as a consequence of this Bill, we seem to be evolving a system in which the Government, by executive action, decide the way forward, rather than the Welsh people through their Assembly or the people of the United Kingdom through this Parliament. That is undemocratic. It is not what the people of Wales were told they were voting for when the previous referendum was held.
	There are valid reasons for Wales to follow the route taken in Scotland and to have primary legislative powers if that is what is desired. Equally, it can be argued that the alleged log-jam has been exaggerated—that emerged clearly in Committee in another place—and that therefore the Assembly should concentrate on making the present arrangements work. I would allow the Welsh people the choice. I trust the people. They should be asked whether they want to stick with what they have or whether we should go the whole way and go for primary legislative competence along the Scottish lines. I would amend Part 4 so that it could not simply be blocked by the Secretary of State. I would like it to be triggered by a majority of the Assembly if that is what they want. It is up to the people of Wales if they want to have fully fledged devolution to have it. I want to remove the blockages.
	As my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking made clear when he introduced his Parliament (Participation of Members of the House of Commons) Bill, and as many of us warned many years ago, that may have consequences in terms of fewer Members of Parliament or restrictions on their powers to decide on purely English legislation. One day the West Lothian question will have to receive an answer, and I look forward to what my noble friend has to say on the subject later.
	I return now to Part 1 of the Bill. Clause 7 seeks to prevent candidates standing in both constituency and regional elections. In another place a remark made by me in response to the government Statement repeated in this House on 15 June last year has been cited as evidence that I support what the Government propose. That is entirely my fault. Ignoring the wise words of my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy, who had done his homework, I commented on a topic about which I then knew absolutely nothing, and was beguiled by the superficially persuasive words of the Statement, which—unlike my noble friend—I had not had the opportunity to see or consider in advance.
	When I came to read the comments of those bodies well qualified to comment—the Electoral Commission, the Electoral Reform Society, the Richard commission, and particularly those of the commission appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland, chaired by Sir John Arbuthnott—I found that I was completely wrong. The Arbuthnott commission, having looked closely at the Welsh arguments for Scotland,
	"firmly rejected limiting the opportunity of parties or individuals to stand in both constituencies and regions, as it appears to us that such a restriction would be undemocratic".
	The arguments that the Arbuthnott commission advanced were detailed and persuasive and we will return to them in Committee.
	The House was given an opportunity to debate the issue by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, on 3 March when he introduced a measure similar to the Welsh Secretary's bit of gerrymandering. His attempt was wisely rejected by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Guiting, speaking on behalf of the Government. The Minister has today, as he had on that occasion, the unenviable job of seeking to condemn what is said to be a monstrously unfair practice in Wales while insisting that it is entirely sensible and defensible in Scotland, where the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes—who made a challenge that was rejected earlier this afternoon—has shown that the circumstances are precisely similar. The conclusive argument is that changes in electoral arrangements should be introduced only on the basis of independent advice and a wide political consensus.
	Clause 29 is almost as bad, forcing the Assembly to have larger committees than it can sustain, with eight or 10 members, if it is to avoid the Labour Party having a dominance in those committees not justified by the total number of seats that it holds in the Assembly. In any event it is wrong that this Parliament, at the instigation of the current Labour Administration, should dictate such limitations. Like the Select Committee on the Constitution, I think that it is an inappropriate incursion into matters that should be left to the Assembly to determine for itself.
	I conclude by emphasising that this is not a measure that should concern only Welsh Members of this House. As with the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill we are dealing with issues of grave constitutional importance concerning the role of Parliament, the powers of the Executive, the manner in which legislation is handled and the appropriate way of ensuring good government for all the different parts of what is still, and I trust will remain, a United Kingdom.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, like others who have already spoken, there is much in the Bill that I welcome, particularly the separation of executive and legislature as it brings the Assembly in line with traditional parliamentary structures, provides clarity of roles for the public and improves independence and accountability. I support the principle of giving the Assembly greater legislative competence, recognising the Assembly's development and contribution over the last seven years. Wales needs to have its request for legislation freed from the logjam that has existed. But, my concerns are in three key areas: the committee structures; the way the powers are to be enhanced; and the changes to the electoral system.
	First, I am concerned about the changes to the party balance in Assembly committees, as proposed in Clause 29. The Better Governance for Wales White Paper promised a more wide-ranging reform affording greater flexibility for the Assembly to decide the constitution of its committees, which would bring the Assembly committee provisions broadly in line with those set out in the Scotland Act 1988. However, contrary to the promise of applying the simple and straightforward approach taken in Scotland, Clause 29 is considerably more prescriptive and complex than both the 1998 Act and the White Paper, requiring the allocation of seats on committees to be calculated using the d'Hondt formula. The formula is used to calculate the allocation of regional list seats in Assembly elections, and in Northern Ireland and Scotland to allocate committee chairs. An attempt was made in 1999 in Scotland to apply d'Hondt principles to committee membership, but it was subsequently abandoned to allow single member parties a seat on committees.
	The Secretary of State for Wales has acknowledged that the d'Hondt formula becomes distorted when applied to smaller committees of six or fewer members. So, to apply the d'Hondt formula restricts the Assembly's flexibility to set up smaller committees when it needs to do the job that we will be asking it to do. If the Government insist on the d'Hondt formula, the call for more AMs becomes an imperative to ensure balance and allow minority representation on committees.
	Will the Minister explain why the case is so different for Wales from that of Scotland and Northern Ireland, and why Wales warrants the use of the d'Hondt formula for the membership of committees, rather than just for the election of chairs? When applied to the election of chairs it actually seems to make a lot of sense.
	My second set of concerns relate to the Assembly's legislative powers. The Better Governance for Wales White Paper clearly states that Her Majesty's Government's intention is to immediately, in drafting primary legislation relating to Wales, delegate to the Assembly maximum discretion in making its own provisions using its secondary legislative powers. Recently, the Assembly Minister for Health and Social Services gave us an insight into his own experience of framework powers in a debate and discussion on the NHS Redress Bill, saying that,
	"some of the signals that we are getting from Westminster were that . . . in making the case for framework legislation, there had to be some immediacy in the sense that we would be likely to use that framework legislation sometime within the next couple of years in order to have a strong intellectual case for it".
	From Dr Gibbons' statement, it appears that the Assembly must continue to make a case for framework powers, rather than, as was promised last June, a policy for new Bills to frame legislative discretion in devolved areas. Can the Minister clarify this apparent departure from the White Paper commitment and the possible internal inconsistency?
	I understand the Government's view is that they would not be able to make the case for full primary legislative powers for the Assembly to the Welsh electorate at this time. Powers previously delegated to the Assembly by Order in Council have been repeatedly criticised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House as giving powers to the Assembly which, in its view, would not be appropriate to be delegated, for England, to a Minister.
	Orders in Council, as far as I understand, would be unamendable. So Orders in Council appear a rather awkward halfway house in transferring legislative responsibility to the Assembly. Will the Minister explain why this approach is recommended and detail how it will work with the checks and balances that are required for a safe legislative process?
	Despite all this, the Bill seems to lack a very practical provision. There is no provisional duty to publish and maintain a register to track subordinate legislation by the Assembly. That is a mechanism that the Law Society in Wales has called for and is supported by the BMA in Wales.
	The Government have increasingly given clearer information—I am grateful—for the tracking of primary legislation as it affects Wales. I hope that the improved tables and explanatory notes will continue and will become routine practice in drafting all explanatory notes. We need to track all legislation, particularly as it increasingly diverges from regulation affecting England. Solicitors and other professionals in Wales, such as healthcare professionals, need to know all the details and to be able to access them rapidly—hence the call for a register.
	My third concern is the reform to the electoral system, with proposals to prevent dual candidacy. Far from being seen as a means of hedging your bets, dual candidacy is an express requirement when standing for election in some countries. We have two separate ballot papers in the Assembly elections: one first past the post and the other for the list. Success on one ballot paper is independent of failure on the other. Of course, as an AM can occupy only one seat, the first past the post system took preference—but there were two ballot papers.
	In its submission to the Welsh Affairs Committee, the Government's own Electoral Commission cautioned against this change, which it perceived to be partisan and possibly adding to a prevailing distrust of politicians. It stated that the case for change had not been made. The Secretary of State discussed these remarks, saying that they were not the Electoral Commission's finest hour, but the Electoral Reform Society also vehemently opposes the proposals. It urges,
	"the Government to reconsider their proposal to ban dual candidacy, a controversial and divisive argument for which the case has not been adequately made".
	The recent Arbuthnott commission in Scotland, already referred to, considered dual candidacy. It concluded that its prevention would be "undemocratic" and agreed that it would place,
	"an unnecessary restriction on the democratic rights of potential candidates, parties and local electors to have as unrestricted a choice as possible in an election".
	Furthermore, I do not understand how banning dual candidacy would stop regional Assembly Members who have not secured a first-past-the-post seat then setting up offices as a representative in the constituency where they stood. Surely the roles of constituency and regional Members should be clearly set out in an Assembly-endorsed code of practice, with job descriptions for regional Members to focus their role on all-Wales concerns, which override constituency or even regional boundaries. There are issues such as north-south transport links, the environment and water, which are dramatically going to affect the future of Wales, particularly economically. We need AMs who take an all-Wales view. I would prefer that they had an all-Wales view, not even a sub-regional view.
	This proposed system of banning dual candidacy has been widely condemned as undemocratic and partisan, and risks reducing voter choice and the quality of campaigning, particularly for the smaller parties. Why is it being forced on Wales, without demonstrable need and without any real consultation?

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I do not feel that there is any major difficulty with the main thrust of the Bill. None the less, I feel more could be done in the Bill to reinforce the third sector in Wales and the Wales Council for Voluntary Action.
	The third sector in Wales consists of a broad range of people, organisations and communities, who act independently of the state for the public benefit and not for private financial gain. This sector can tackle needs that are beyond the capabilities and resources of the public sector and which cannot be met on purely commercial terms. The sector includes voluntary organisations, community groups, volunteers, self-help groups, community co-operatives and enterprises and religious organisations. The sector is active every minute of every day in every community in Wales, making a significant contribution to every aspect of economic, cultural, social and environmental life.
	The Wales Council for Voluntary Action is the voice of the voluntary sector. It represents, supports and campaigns for voluntary organisations, volunteers and communities in Wales. The Wales Council for Voluntary Action, collaborating with partners, works to strengthen voluntary community action in civil society in Wales. This involves: supporting working relationships with government and public bodies; supporting and promoting the work of voluntary and community groups at national and local level; supporting and promoting volunteering and the interests of volunteers; promoting community cohesion and inclusion and building social capital; developing and supporting new initiatives; enhancing resources; and improving performance and effectiveness.
	There are approximately 30,000 voluntary and community organisations in Wales, of which over 25,000 are recorded on the all-Wales database maintained by the Wales Council for Voluntary Action. Over 23,000 are local groups, working at local authority level and even more locally than that. From a survey of voluntary organisations operating in Wales, the Wales Council for Voluntary Action estimates that the total income in 2001–02 was over £1 billion. Despite there being over 1.25 million unpaid volunteers, the voluntary sector in Wales employs at least 30,000 people—almost 2.5 per cent of the workforce in Wales. In 2002 the Wales Council for Voluntary Action survey showed that 13,000 were in the health- and social-care area, nearly 20 per cent of the social-care workforce.
	The WCVA has responsibility for facilitating the sector's involvement in the National Assembly for Wales Voluntary Sector Scheme. This includes facilitating the selection of the voluntary sector representatives on the Voluntary Sector Partnership Council, ensuring that as far as possible they reflect a cross-section of the voluntary sector interests and activities. The WCVA provides the secretariat for several sub-groups and working groups that have arisen from the Voluntary Sector Partnership Council, including the funding and compliance sub-committee.
	The WCVA also facilitates the biannual meetings between Assembly Government Ministers and representatives of the relevant networks of voluntary organisations. These meetings review how the Voluntary Sector Scheme is operating in Wales, anticipate forthcoming issues and consider resources. The WCVA convenes the planning meetings for the sector to prepare for the ministerial meetings.
	The WCVA's other support services include a help desk, funding advice, information sheets, comprehensive training programme, help with assessing European funding, regular magazine and information bulletins, and a range of grant schemes.
	When the Bill is in Committee I shall be tabling an amendment for the Government to consider including the Voluntary Sector Partnership Council and its composition in the Bill. In the mean time, I hope that I have demonstrated to your Lordships the justification for such an approach.
	I was encouraged today when I listened to the Budget by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and he indicated that an office was going to be set up in the Treasury for the voluntary sector. That demonstrates to me that the value of the work conducted by volunteers and voluntary organisations is recognised. Wales as a nation and needs to have this identified in the Bill. I hope that the House will agree.

Lord Rowlands: Given the time, I shall confine my observations to Parts 3 and 4 of the Bill. First, it was a privilege and a pleasure to be a member of the Richard commission and to serve under my noble friend's chairmanship. At least he will have the satisfaction of knowing that, unlike many other commission reports, the dust has not gathered on his. Not only has it not gathered dust, it has been the prompter of change and has influenced government thinking. As my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies said, this Bill would not be before the House had it not been for the Richard commission report.
	The commission recommended that, ultimately, there should be the full transfer of primary powers to a Welsh Assembly. During its deliberations, particularly in chapter 13, it looked at other ways in which legislative competence could be bestowed on the Assembly within the existing arrangements of the 1988 settlement—the notion of framework legislation to which a number of Members have referred.
	Since I came to this House, I—unlike the noble Lord, Lord Baker—have watched pre-legislative scrutiny work very effectively in the Welsh context. We have had a kind of legislative trinity—Lords, Commons and Assembly—working together to produce good Bills. The latest Bill, the transport Bill, created a new precedent where the Assembly committee and the Welsh Select Committees in the other place worked together, jointly, and produced a very effective Bill, to which the Minister has listened and has amended accordingly as a result. The noble Lord's dismissal of the pre-legislative scrutiny procedure is unfair in the Welsh context. The NHS Redress Bill and the framework clause of Clause 17 have now come before us, which the Constitution Committee on which I sit has now accepted as an essential part of the process of extending legislative competence to the Welsh Assembly. Of course, we did not anticipate—it is not in the Richard commission report—the novel, interesting and innovative idea of the Orders in Council in Part 3.
	Members in this House have referred to debates in the other place already and the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, produced the same line as was taken by the Conservative Front Bench in the Commons; namely, that this is a disguised, kind of virtual transfer of primary law-making powers to such an extent that it is believed that there should be a referendum on Part 3. I would love to see the draft question that would be put to the Welsh people on the intricacies of Part 3, which would obviously grasp the imagination of the Welsh electorate. It is a ludicrous suggestion that Part 3 has to be put in the form of a referendum.
	The debate and discussion that took place as a result of that argument raises a fundamental issue, which was raised properly and effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and my noble friend Lord Richard: what will be the nature and content of the Orders in Council? Will we be presented with an Order in Council which is minimal in words, signifying a massive transfer of legislative competence over a wide area of policy? Indeed, if that were so, I would be a part of those people who would jib at the whole notion of doing so. We certainly will want to know what we are voting for. While I do not agree that there should be a draft measure, we have a right to expect clarification on the content, nature and scope of the Orders in Council.
	In that context, it is interesting and helpful that the Government did two kind of mock-up Orders in Council on Bills which have already passed; namely, the public ombudsman Bill—I do not know whether Members have seen it—and on what is now the transport Act. Having read both of those mock-up Orders in Council, I found the first perfectly comprehensible. At least I would have understood what I was voting for and the sort of competence that we would give to the Assembly, and its measure.
	The mock-up order on the transport issue, I found opaque. Had I not known what was in the Transport Act, I do not think that I would have understood what was being proposed. Therefore, the content, scope and nature of the Orders in Council that which we will be presented is very important. If they are to be broad and clear as to what specific legislative competence has been sought by the Assembly in the subsequent measure, we would have every reason to object. The Government have suggested that the process of pre-legislative scrutiny and the Explanatory Notes will help and in that process.
	As a member of the Constitution Committee, I should bring the attention of the House to the concerns that the committee has that this House could be marginalised in the process. We are not likely, or have not yet got a procedure, to be part of any pre-legislative scrutiny of the kind that will probably happen between the Assembly and the Commons on these draft Orders in Council. The committee rightly suggests—it is for the House to decide—in what structure, manner and way we will be able to deal with those issues and, as it were, participate and not be marginalised.
	Therefore, there is quite a serious point, which Members on all sides have raised, in relation to Orders in Council. We should expect any Orders in Council to flag up the key features of what will be an Assembly measure. We should not dwell on Assembly measures as such—that is not the kind of progress that this Bill anticipates in Part 3. The Orders in Council should flag up the key features of what an Assembly measure should be. Then we would know what we are expected to vote for and what kind of legislative competence we would therefore bestow, in a particular field or on a particular issue, on the Assembly.
	I turn briefly to Part 4. When we debated within the commission, I did not support the decision to transfer primary legislative powers. I understood, however, that if one did support that, the capacity of the Assembly would be inadequate. There would not be a kind of Back-Bench backbone sufficient to fully scrutinise the primary legislation to be transferred. I am therefore concerned that, in what is omitted from Part 4, the issue of the Assembly's capacity has not been addressed. I believe that the Assembly's capacity to handle Part 3 will be okay—partly because Westminster will be involved and Welsh Members in the other place will be sharing and taking part in the pre-legislative process. That will immensely help the subsequent development of Assembly measures. My noble friend and I immodestly suggest that everybody discussing the capacity issue should read Chapter 4 of the Richard commission report. Re-reading it, I was forcefully struck by what a thorough and detailed analysis we did on the Assembly's capacity—or, as the Secretary of State put it bluntly to the Constitution Committee, how the Assembly can work harder. There is considerable scope for the Assembly to work harder and therefore to accommodate the new legislative responsibilities that could be bestowed on it by Part 3. The Commission was unambiguous in its conclusion that if there was a transfer of full primary powers to an Assembly, an Assembly of 60 Members would be insufficient. There would not be a sufficient Back-Bench backbone to carry out that kind of scrutiny and investigation.
	I understand very well—because we are all critical realists—why the Secretary of State and the Government have shied away from including any such reference to it in Part 4. I hope that my noble friend would agree with me that the commission grappled with this issue hour upon hour. Once one decides to increase the membership, one opens up the issue of how to elect the extra 20 members. That is pretty fundamental and, understandably, extremely difficult. I am indicating at this stage that the issue will not go away. If a referendum is called, the Assembly's capacity to cope with these new powers would arise and the issue of how to elect the extra 20 Members will arise sooner or later; it will not go away.
	However, as we will see in the way Part 3 works out, we will have in the mean time knowledge and experience of the practice of what has happened to the Assembly and how well it has coped with and managed to carry the Assembly measures through. That invaluable experience will then inform the debate about the future size and capacity of an assembly if it were given full primary powers. My noble friend and I are at one on this issue: if you do transfer primary powers, you have to increase the Assembly from 60 to 80 Members. I support this Bill. I believe it carries the process of devolution further. It is incremental. I have always believed constitutional and institutional development should be allowed to mature, to grow and to take root. You should not keep on pulling up the seed that is growing. This Bill does not do that. It helps and carries the process of devolution further, and I support it.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, I believe in subsidiarity—the principle that power and accountability should be as close as practicable to the people. Nye Bevan said that the purpose of power was to give it away. Of course, it is unusual that politicians choose to give away power, and it is greatly to the credit of this Government that they have adopted their policies of devolution. It was right, in 1997, that the Government offered the people of Wales the opportunity of devolution, and I am very glad that the people of Wales said yes. Since the passage of the Government of Wales Act and the establishment of the Assembly, the system has worked well, separatism has abated, Wales has prospered, and the democratic culture of Wales has thrived and matured. It is time now, however, to review that legislation.
	I believe we all agree that the Government are right to separate the executive from the legislature, and to address the problems that have emerged from the way in which we legislate at Westminster on matters devolved to Wales. Whereas primary legislative powers were afforded to Scotland, I believe it was right that they were not conferred upon Wales at that time. The mandate was too thin. Since then, we have encountered the problem of lack of time in the Westminster legislative programme for Welsh measures, and when there has been legislation, there has been insufficient scrutiny—in the House of Commons at any rate—in my experience. They have developed varieties of useful, pre-legislative scrutiny, but few Members of Parliament representing Welsh constituencies have been appointed to stand in committees on Bills that contain important clauses referring to Wales; and non-Welsh MPs have either been uninterested or have felt that they should not presume to intrude on issues that are devolved to Wales. We have had framework Bills—very possibly outflanking Parliament's original intention when devolution for Wales was established—but necessary to enable the Assembly to exercise the powers devolved to it.
	Critics of this Bill, who complain that it would diminish Parliament's powers of scrutiny, should take account of the failure of the House of Commons, all too often, to scrutinise the detail of legislation in relation to Wales in recent years, and the tolerance by Parliament of very large, permissive, legislative measures. The upshot is that policies agreed by the executives in Cardiff and Whitehall have been perfunctorily scrutinised before landing on the people of Wales. Some would say that the remedy for these difficulties is to move now to full primary legislative powers. I agree with the Government that it is unlikely that the people of Wales would vote for that transference now; and I also agree with the Government that they are right that the representatives of the people of Wales in the Assembly should determine the eventual timing of a referendum on this matter. In my judgment, the Assembly is not yet ready to assume full primary legislative powers. I speak with great respect, but I believe that the Assembly has further to go to gain the confidence and the affection of people in many parts of Wales. I also respectfully submit that it needs to re-orientate some of its focus and efforts and to develop some of its procedural methods. Surprisingly little time has been spent by the Assembly in the period of its existence in scrutiny, and in taking the advantage that it might have done in of the enormous potential of its powers to enact secondary legislation. It is a small body, less than one-tenth of the size of the House of Commons. It sits for fewer weeks than either the House of Commons or the House of Lords, and there is no second chamber in Cardiff to assist in the process of scrutiny.
	The objective should be to move to transfer to devolution of full primary powers, and that it is therefore sensible to take this opportunity to provide in legislation for a referendum to occur to enable primary powers to be transferred. It is also sensible, however, to proceed gradually as the Government wish to do. The interim arrangements—the procedures that are proposed in the Bill for Orders in Council leading to Assembly measures—are ingenious. There are problems of legislative time, of inadequate scrutiny, and of inadequate accountability. Part 3 addresses them. Critics of Part 3 need to offer their own constructive alternative. I do not think that the referendum being called for by the Conservative Party on the creation of the powers set out in Part 3 is any kind of constructive alternative. Views within the Conservative Party vary, but it is unclear whether the Conservatives hope that the referendum would be lost. They would be embarrassed about that because I do not think they have the political will to revoke devolution, and so we would be stuck with a system that does not work well either democratically or technically.
	Some issues arise from the scheme proposed by the Government. I fancy that the Assembly, rightly being ambitious, will make many bids for new legislative competencies, so much so that when the great day comes for a referendum in 2011 or whenever, what will be left to devolve? Can my noble friend tell us whether it is indeed the case that once legislative competence has been conferred in relation to a particular matter—or field, to use the jargon of the Bill—the Assembly will not need to come back for it to be renewed? The letter from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to the shadow Secretary of State setting out illustrative examples seems to envisage that the Government would be transferring very broad powers, for example in the field of transport.
	If there are many such bids, the load on the Welsh Affairs Select Committee is going to be considerable. Have the Government considered whether the Welsh Grand Committee might have a useful part to play, particularly in pre-legislative scrutiny? A committee consisting of every Welsh Member of Parliament, and which on the past pattern has not met very often, would seem to be available as a rather useful instrument for this work.
	How are the interests of England and the United Kingdom to be taken into account in pre-legislative scrutiny? In recent years we have seen that policies on one side of the border for the National Health Service or for student support, to take two examples, have important impacts on the other side. What, as other noble Lords have asked, is to be the role of the House of Lords? Are our procedures to be changed so that we vote on Orders in Council, or is our role simply to be advisory? What will be the processes for reconciliation if the two Houses of Parliament arrive at different views on a proposal for a new legislative competence in Wales?
	I am inclined to think that there will be too few Assembly Members to undertake the responsibility of scrutiny, even during this interim stage two period. My noble friend Lord Rowlands was optimistic on this point. He thought that on the whole they would handle it, particularly working in partnership with the two Houses of Parliament. But it would helpful if, when he comes to wind up, my noble friend would tell the House why the Government have chosen to reject the recommendations of the commission chaired by my noble friend Lord Richard, and on which my noble friend Lord Rowlands served, that the number of Assembly Members should be increased to 80, all of them to be elected through the single transferable vote? What is wrong, in the Government's view, with having more Assembly Members, having them all elected on the same basis, and therefore with equality of status? If we are to keep the additional member system, why do we not move to a national list, a move which would dispose of many of the difficulties about which the Government complain regarding the operation of the additional member system on regional lists?
	I am struck by the number of blocking powers provided for the Secretary of State in this legislation. He has the power to change the fields of legislative competence, to agree or disagree with an Assembly bid for a legislative competence order, to refuse to lay a draft order, to reject amendments that emerge from pre-legislative scrutiny, and even to prohibit the Clerk from submitting an Assembly measure to Her Majesty in Council. He has the power to disallow the referendum, and of course he has the power to determine the composition of committees in the Assembly. If the Government believe in devolution, they should act accordingly and trust the Assembly. Is it that the evolution of devolution will lead to the extinction of the role and office of the Secretary of State and that Whitehall is still too reluctant to face that? Am I right to discern some Treasury negativism in these blocking powers, and apprehension on the part of the Treasury that the Assembly will get a little uppity about public expenditure and the constraints of the Welsh Consolidated Fund which this Bill would create?
	It is said that this Bill will settle for a generation the constitutional status of Wales, but it contains nothing about tax varying powers. In due course the issue is bound to arise, and it would be a constitutional issue that would need to be dealt with in a constitutional Bill rather than in a finance Bill. It is bound to arise if only because at some point the people of Wales will insist on parity with the people of Scotland.
	No doubt these issues will be examined searchingly during the passage of the Bill through this House, but I believe that it imaginatively and constructively addresses real problems and needs, and I wish it a fair passage.

Baroness Gale: My Lords, I was involved for many years in developing the Labour Party's policy on devolution as general secretary of the Wales Labour Party. I worked with my noble friend Lord Jones in his then role as shadow Secretary of State for Wales. We spent many hours, months and years developing the policy. That is why I am very pleased to be able to take part in this debate.
	This Bill is a further development in the devolution process. It updates, perhaps improves, the structure of devolution after seven years. It shows what has worked and what needs to be improved. During the seven years of devolution, some excellent Wales- only legislation has been enacted at Westminster at the request of the Welsh Assembly, such as the legislation that created the Children's Commissioner, the first of its kind in the United Kingdom. Today, there are Children's Commissioners in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. There will soon be a Commissioner for Older People in Wales—the first such commissioner, it is believed, in the world.
	Free bus passes for everyone over 60 in Wales have provided new opportunities for older people to travel around the country. I was reading in the Western Mail this week that many older people from the valleys are taking day trips to Porthcawl—even in this weather—and bringing additional custom to the shops and restaurants. One pensioner takes a trip to mid-Wales every week, just for the pleasure of the ride. The free bus passes have changed the lives of many older people, who, instead of staying at home on their own, can once again enjoy the simple pleasures of a day at the seaside or in the country, or even a trip to Cardiff. Many additional benefits which were probably not anticipated when the free bus passes were first issued have accrued.
	I could give many other examples of how differently and successfully we are doing things in Wales because of devolution. One look at the elected Members in the Assembly shows how different things are. We have an Assembly of 60 Members, of whom 30 are women. It is the only legislature in the world to have 50 per cent of its membership made up of women. It is also the only legislature in the world in which the majority of Cabinet members are women. I feel the same sense of pride as I felt the first day that the Assembly sat in May 1999 after so many women had been elected. That showed the new, young, different face of the new Wales. The contrast between the House of Commons and the Welsh Assembly is for all to see. Many women politicians serve as role models to women in Wales. I felt that same sense of pride on 1 March, when I attended the opening of our wonderful new Assembly building. I know that other noble Lords who were there on that day felt the same.
	I feel proud also of my own party, which worked for so many years in the 1980s and 1990s to ensure that we had a good and workable policy on devolution. Without that commitment from the Labour Party, we would not have had devolution and we would not be debating today how we can improve the structures that are now in place.
	I agree with the ban on candidates standing in both the constituency section and the list. If a candidate is rejected by the constituency and can still be a Member of the Assembly, that brings about a certain amount of confusion among the electorate. In a democracy, the electoral system must be robust and it must reflect the wishes of the electorate.
	Much has been said about the list Members encroaching on the work of the constituency Members. Several noble Lords have said today that it seems that the Labour Party is opposed to list Members opening constituency offices. Of course, those Members need to open offices. As noble Lords have asked, how could the Labour Party be against elected Members, even list Members, having an office or running a campaign? The problem has arisen because many list Members have opened an office in a constituency which they hope to fight in the next round of elections. They have targeted a constituency and perhaps not worked as hard in the rest of the region. That is the problem; it is not that they open offices.
	In the run-up to the elections in 1999, no party spelt out the role of the list Member. It was new to us all. It was only when the election campaign started that I began to wonder what we would do with the list Members. I think that that was the first time many of us asked what a list Member would do. I know that, as far as the Labour Party and other parties were concerned, the list Members were the same as constituency Members, because there was no particular role for them. I know that the Bill does not address this matter. Perhaps all parties should think about it. Perhaps we should have thought about the exact role of the regional list Members in the past, but none of us did.
	Much has been said about not allowing candidates to stand both in a constituency and on the list. The approach that is being taken is not a precedent. The Electoral Administration Bill, which is in Committee in this House, will ban candidates from standing in more than one constituency. This will end the practice of independent candidates standing in more than one constituency, an example of which—the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, mentioned her—was the candidate who stood in the four Cardiff constituencies in the 2005 general election. Catherine Taylor-Dawson stood on the Vote for Yourself Rainbow Dream Ticket. Her total vote in the four constituencies was 204. She received just one vote in Cardiff North. Another candidate, Rainbow George, stood in 13 constituencies in England. That is an abuse of democracy which will end with the passing of the Electoral Administration Bill. How are the proposals for Wales so different from those in the Electoral Administration Bill? The proposal to ban candidates standing in more than one seat in the same election is no different from the proposal in the Electoral Administration Bill.
	I spoke earlier of the innovative measures that the Welsh Assembly has introduced, such as for a Children's Commissioner and a Commissioner for Older People, as well the Assembly's 50 per cent female membership. There are other such innovations. The Welsh Assembly can be justly proud of being the first legislature in the United Kingdom, or in the world, to take innovative measures on specific matters which have proved to be so successful. Even if we are the first to rule that a candidate cannot stand in the constituency section and the list at the same time, our past record when we have been the first to do something suggests that this, too, will be a successful measure.
	The proposals to allow the Welsh Assembly to pass legislation on devolved matters through Orders in Council are to be welcomed. I am glad that my only concern has been mentioned by several noble Lords tonight, because they have far more parliamentary experience than I do; when I looked at it, I thought that perhaps my lack of parliamentary experience meant that I did not understand the process. I am grateful to the Minister for explaining in his opening remarks the role of your Lordships' House in pre-legislative scrutiny; he said that it is for this House to consider how best to conduct it.
	However, at what stage will your Lordships' House decide on pre-legislative scrutiny? Will it be when the draft order arrives in Parliament? Who will make the decision on how to proceed? Will these matters be decided during consideration of the Bill—I do not think so—or will the decision be more informal? If we do not have clear guidance in advance, the opportunity for this House to carry out pre-legislative scrutiny could be denied to us, leaving the only opportunity for debate or discussion at the Order in Council stage. I understand that there will not be an opportunity for amendments; there will be an opportunity only to express views. I am not clear at all on this. I hope that the Minister can assure me on the points that I and many other noble Lords have made. My only concern is for your Lordships' House to have the opportunity to scrutinise, as I fully support the measure to allow the Assembly to legislate in the manner that it believes best for Wales.
	I am glad to see a provision for a referendum to be held if it is proposed that further legislative powers should be given to Wales. It makes sense to have that written into the Bill at this stage. When further devolution is needed must be a matter for the people of Wales to decide.
	There are many aspects of this Bill that I welcome. It will give the Welsh Assembly the confidence and ability to deliver the required legislation for the people of Wales without having to wait its turn in the parliamentary queue. I believe—and many have expressed this view tonight—that devolution is working for the people of Wales. As this new institution grows, it is now appropriate to allow it to develop further along the legislative path.

Lord Jones: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gale. It was my happy duty to work for devolved government for Wales alongside her for many years. I congratulate her upon her successful work.
	I followed closely the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy. I recommend most highly his marvellous memoir, Right from the Start. I listened carefully to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth. I felt a twinge of regret that I worked so hard to prevent him being elected in his now famous by-election; he triumphed. He is here, I am glad to say, and made a splendid and genuine reference to the late Lord Ackner; he spoke for all of us.
	As a Wales Office Minister, I campaigned for a "Yes" vote in the 1 March 1979 referendum. On the eve of the poll, I had the privilege of opening a new primary school in Blaenau Ffestiniog. To my surprise, the dinner ladies of Maenofferen Primary School gave a united, vigorous thumbs-down to our historic constitutional offer to the Welsh people. Thereafter, the concept of a Wales assembly lay on the back-burner of Welsh governance for a whole generation, or thereabouts. The time was not ripe; the electors were not ready; we, the advocates of devolution, were unconvincing.
	As every month passes, surely my noble friend Lord Richard's commission proposals are shown to be shrewdly and cannily made. This Bill, as proposed by the Secretary of State for Wales and Northern Ireland, will facilitate the noble Lord's commission's objectives: not if, but when—probably to target, which may be by 2011.
	The Wales Assembly is young. The recorded history of our country is well over 1,200 years. Yet, in a few short years, remarkable devolutionary strides have been made. The actual handover from Whitehall to Cardiff was well orchestrated—indeed, quite seamless—and a credit to our civil servants and Assembly Ministers. Constitutional history was made, and the Assembly continues to mature. Surely, then, it has earned the additional powers now offered by the Secretary of State for Wales in his Government of Wales Bill. I take the view of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach: it has earned it.
	On 1 March, Her Majesty the Queen, accompanied by the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Duchess of Cornwall, opened the new Assembly building. This was not only a unique historic occasion, but surely a seal of approval—a coming of age of the concept of devolved government in Wales. It was a remarkable day, and all those present will have found it unforgettable. It was an impressive ceremony in a brilliantly successful and graceful building. I had the chance to offer my own congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Rogers of Riverside.
	None of us can foretell the future, but governments change, even when of the same colour. Should a government lack a majority, then considerable pressures develop. Some of us have been through decades like that. Governments lacking a majority may come under pressure, especially in de facto coalition situations. So we should watch this space, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, implied. It is a changing scene.
	Will this Bill enhance the governance of Wales? Surely it will. It will certainly boost the confidence of the Assembly as a provider. This legislation is surely a distinctive signpost towards primary legislation, and a measure acceded to by Westminster MPs led by a Secretary of State for Wales with a longstanding record of support for Welsh devolution. Surely the popular and successful First Minister of the Wales Assembly government will see this measure as an acceptable three-quarters of the devolutionary loaf.
	However, I offer some cautionary notes from, first, Professor Vernon Bogdanor, a professor of government, in 2004; secondly, Mr Peter Riddell, the sage—and tart commentator—of The Times in February this year; and, thirdly, the combative and consistent Mr Alan Williams MP in January 2006 in the Government of Wales Bill debate in another place. Professor Bogdanor said:
	"For devolution threatens one very fundamental principle which has lain at the basis of British social democratic politics from the time of the Attlee government. It is that the benefits which the individual derives from the state, and the burdens which the state imposes upon him"—
	or her—
	"should depend, not upon geography, but upon need".
	He went on to say:
	"It was for this reason that Aneurin Bevan"—
	who was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport—
	"so strongly resisted the creation of separate Welsh and Scottish health services".
	That was what the professor of government said. Mr Riddell, in a recent issue of The Times, said:
	"For a start"—
	this is an article refuting in part what the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, said—
	" the over-representation of Welsh MPs relative to English ones should be ended. This happened last year in Scotland but Wales needs to lose a fifth of its current 40 MPs, especially after the devolution of greater powers in the Government of Wales Bill".
	That is his view, but it is cautionary, and part of the context in which we will consider the progress of this legislation. My former colleague in another place, Mr Alan Williams, who has a long record on this issue, said:
	"In the atmosphere that has been partially created by the act of devolution—making the Welsh more Welsh and the Scottish more Scottish—there is a seeping effect of making the English more English. I suspect that there is a limit of how long the English electorate will put up with the situation where Welsh and Scottish votes determine what they get, especially if there was a Government with an overall majority but only a minority of votes in England".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/1/06; col. 55.]
	That point was made from the Opposition Benches.
	I bring those to your Lordships because we need to know the context of our debate. To summarise my argument, there are risks. As the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, implied, nationhood beckons. He may say that, but I judge that continuing accretions of powers are irresistible and inevitable. I think that the political conditions are favourable, and here is a Fabian solution. This measure is a launch pad towards primary powers. What the implications for the United Kingdom are, I do not know.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we have had a fascinating debate. Let me first reply to the noble Lord, Lord Henley. He will have recognised that 93 of the clauses were recycled from the 1998 Act, so it is not surprising that the other place did not think they ought to spend a huge amount of time discussing clauses which had been considered in previous legislation. Ample time was allowed for proper scrutiny, especially as the Bill follows the policies set out in the White Paper, which were thoroughly discussed and consulted upon. I am not suggesting that this Bill merits anything but the fullest possible discussion in this House. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that we will be moving a Motion fairly shortly—I hope it will be shortly as it will be at the conclusion of my speech—to refer the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House. Therefore, we will be discussing it in this Chamber; and so we should. This has been a fitting debate for a Bill that represents a historic step forward in the governance of Wales.
	The Bill will increase accountability by creating a clear separation between the executive and the legislature in Wales—a separation which I think has been supported on all sides of the House, and certainly by my noble friends. It will enable the Assembly—the legislature—to have the powers it needs to shape "made in Wales" legislation to meet Welsh priorities. It will improve the electoral system by ensuring that when voters reject a constituency candidate, they will not see that same candidate re-emerge as their regional member in the same election. These were all manifesto commitments made by the current Government at the general election, and we intend to see them through the House, subject of course to the necessary scrutiny of detail.
	So far as concerns the Conservative Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts—and I first pay tribute to him for his outstanding work on the Welsh language when he was a Minister in the Welsh Office; we all applaud that—was a little unfair to the Government. He suggested that we were adopting a cautious position on referenda—that is from an administration who, in the 18 years they were in power, never thought that there was an issue to be put before the British people in terms of a referendum. So I do not think I will take a lecture from the noble Lord on the enthusiasm with which referenda should be undertaken.
	The Bill provides for the increase in powers judiciously arrived at through careful consideration under Orders in Council—a process which I freely admit the noble Lord emphasised particularly strongly, but he was followed by many Members in the House saying that they wanted to look closely and scrutinise the Orders in Council proposals and how they will work. We will have opportunities for that in Committee.
	Perhaps I may dispense with this suggestion that what is being accepted is some arbitrary system. Henry VIII powers have been mentioned. How can Henry VIII powers be applied unless Henry VIII was a democratic monarch living in Cardiff, subject to popular vote? Clearly, these are not Henry VIII powers; they are powers but they are powers vested in a legislative assembly.
	Of course we should expect a legislative assembly duly elected by the people of Wales to be able to initiate legislation for judicious consideration through the procedure for Orders in Council, bringing in both the other place and this House.
	It is for this House to make up its mind about how to scrutinise this legislation. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, first addressed this issue and said that she wanted some clarity. This was raised in other parts of the House as well. To clarify, the Constitution Committee has been helpful already. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, chairman of the committee, ensured that it addressed the issue. What did it say? It said that,
	"a clear demarcation of roles would be desirable to ensure effective scrutiny and avoid repetition of effort. It will be important for the committee involved to have sufficient expertise and experience of Welsh affairs. Thought will also need to be given as to how the work of this House, and its committees, can complement rather than merely duplicate the work of the Welsh Affairs Committee in the House of Commons".
	That is the Constitution Committee's proposal. It needs to be thought about more fully. I am quite sure that in the development of this House we will get a basis for proper scrutiny of what we recognise is an innovatory development of legislation, an advancement of devolution, to which we all subscribe—though at different levels of enthusiasm.
	I think the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, said basically that somewhat grudgingly his party had adopted a new stance. Everything is new in the Conservative party at the present time—the issue to test is whether anything will last. He certainly indicated that the party was adjusting its position on devolution, when it had blown pretty cold on the issue in the past.
	At the other extreme is the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who can scarcely hold his breath for the arrival of devolution for Wales, so that he can then establish English for the English against a background—

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Secretary of State has powers with regard to the process of devolution, and so he should. No one is suggesting that the process of devolution should involve the main legislative power and the Executive elected by that main legislative power casting a body adrift without any recognition at all of the relationship between the devolved Assembly and nation and the United Kingdom as a whole. That would be nonsense. Of course there are aspects which guarantee that the process of devolution is subject to parliamentary scrutiny, which I have described, and to the powers of the Secretary of State.
	I see from the debate this evening that we shall have some fairly lively exchanges about the powers of the Secretary of State. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, will guarantee that, and I shall not disappoint him. I want to emphasise this evening the extent to which the broad principles of devolution have been strongly advocated, of course by noble Lords on the Government Benches. I pay tribute to the work of my noble friend Lord Richard, aided by the support of others, which underpinned this fresh development. I should emphasise, however, that this support for devolution needs to be translated into a Bill that clearly advances the framework of devolution, consistent with democratic principles and subject to proper scrutiny by the Parliament that represents the whole of the nation and by the Secretary of State who has responsibility as executive member of that Parliament.
	I maintain that we have got the broad balance of the issues right in the framework of the Bill. I recognise the challenges that have been made this evening. I particularly recognise the challenge of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, who identified what he thought was a weakness in the Bill—namely, that it had no clear commitment to the maintenance, support and extension of the Welsh language, nor to guaranteeing its equality with the English language in the future. I think that I am equipped with a proper response to that and will be able to assuage his fears. But I have limited time at my disposal today. He will forgive me if I do not go into great detail at this stage: I hope the whole House will forgive me that I am not able to match up to all the detailed arguments in a debate which has lasted nearly four hours.
	From the strength and clarify of the views put forward today, I am aware that we are due to have an extremely interesting and exciting Committee stage and subsequent stages. However, I would emphasise that the Government believe that they have placed before this House, subject to the work that has been done in the other place, a Bill which merits detailed scrutiny, but, nevertheless, represents an advance for the people of Wales and an extension of democracy. In those terms, it is a Bill which deserves the welcome that it has largely got from all quarters of this House today.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Lord Bradshaw: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what proposals they have to stimulate the bus industry outside London.
	My Lords, this debate will focus on bus services outside London. There are big differences between London and the rest of the country. Quite apart from the demographics, the level of car ownership, the cost of parking and the predominance of public transport, Transport for London has the advantages of being the highway authority for the strategic bus network, it has the advantage of the congestion charge, a very close link with the Metropolitan Police, camera enforcement on an extensive network of bus lanes, and control of traffic lights. All that is at very considerable cost, but has the Minister considered what it would cost to extend those sorts of measures to the English passenger transport executive areas?
	I suggest that, without tackling those other features, any talk of re-regulating bus services in the PTE areas would be pointless. If these features were tackled, I further suggest that it would be unnecessary to de-regulate bus services. That is because the real enemy of operating a punctual and reliable bus service is traffic congestion. The passenger transport executives are not highway authorities. Have the Government considered giving passenger transport executives powers as highway authorities along the major bus corridors in those areas?
	Outside the metropolitan areas, the shire counties, which procure those bus services not provided commercially, are highway authorities. In some places, particularly where the district authority is co-operative, progress is being made with bus priority schemes, park and ride, parking enforcement and realistic charging for off-street parking. In those places, bus patronage is generally growing and modern fleets are in evidence.
	In other areas, progress is disappointing. Some local authorities and retailers constantly underestimate the importance to their economies of bus travellers. District councils compete to offer the cheapest off-street parking. Is there any mechanism for challenging the way in which district councils run car parks? They are subsidised by local council tax payers, and pay no regard to the capital value of the expensive town centre sites in calculating the charges. Some district councils seem fixated with the notion that more cars equals more shoppers. A recent survey in Transport Times backs up previous surveys which show that retailers consistently overestimate the importance of the car, with the average retailer believing that 41 per cent of customers come by car, when only 22 per cent do so, and that, after walking, 40 per cent of retail spending comes from those who arrive by bus.
	Two questions follow for the Minister. First, should local authorities be obliged to have a parking policy and, if so, should this be subsidised by council tax payers? Secondly, how is parking provided at out-of-town centres? Is it rated, and do the stores pay rates on the car parks at out-of-town centres? The town centres of this country are under threat and, in our view, a well run bus service will contribute substantially to their prosperity.
	While on the subject of statistics, it is worth noting that regular bus users on retirement remain active bus users for much longer than those forced by age to give up the car and then for various reasons fail to adapt to bus use.
	There is a distinct fall in the number of 17 to 20 year-olds holding driving licences. In Transport Trends 2005, the number is down from 43 per cent to 26 per cent. There may be a number of reasons for this: cost of insurance, difficulty in passing the test, cost of lessons, or not being able to afford a car. This is a golden opportunity for the Government to accelerate this trend by extending half-fare, off-peak travel to those in full-time education—an opportunity that, I note, was missed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech in another place today. This group of users—young people in full-time education—has a particularly high propensity to travel and, as a result of the high revenue-generation factor, it would cost very little to implement a half-fare scheme for this group. Will the Minister undertake further, detailed research on this issue?
	My noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market will speak about bus service provision in rural areas and mention the absolute mess that has been made of introducing free travel for pensioners in England. My noble friend Lord Roberts of Llandudno will speak of the much better scheme now operational in Wales, with its much lower administration costs and better benefits. He will also refer to some interesting developments in Wales in cheaper travel for young people. We hope that the Minister can promise to review the English scheme—which, again, the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to today—and will certainly undertake to make better arrangements in the financial year 2007–08.
	When all is said and done, the most important qualities of a bus service are punctuality and reliability. Above all, that means tackling congestion. I give an example of Oxford, of whose county council I am a member. Two and a half years ago, it took a bus 70 minutes to traverse the city from the park-and-ride site on the east to the west and back again. In January this year, it took 105 minutes. That meant the cost of one extra bus, two extra drivers and no extra passengers. So the profitability of the bus service is in constant decline because of the congestion. To some extent, this is due to not having cameras to enforce the bus lane priorities, about which I have frequently questioned the Minister—until he is probably rather sick of it. Although the scheme is now agreed, I understand that there is a problem with type approval on the cameras, about which I hope he can enlighten us. The rest of the delay is due to insufficient bus priority, lax parking enforcement and lack of interest by the present county council administration and the officers.
	For two years the Bus Partnership Forum has been promoting punctuality improvement partnerships. Progress has been very disappointing. Will the Government closely examine local transport plans, which are about to be submitted, to find out whether there are real plans by the counties and districts involved to put some real action together? So far, input into these partnerships by local authorities has also been disappointing. I should like to see the authorities that put forward real proposals to tackle traffic congestion being rewarded, particularly if they propose schemes to create bus priorities at pinch points, enforce strict parking controls and set up park-and-ride schemes and congestion charges.
	Guidance is about to be published following a meeting of the Bus Partnership Forum on how to put together quality partnership agreements. When is the guidance going to be published? It is really essential and of course it should embrace what is to be done by the bus companies and, more importantly, by local authorities. We hope that any scheme will be measured not on the number of vehicles passing along the road, but on the number of people using that corridor. What we are about is moving people, not cars and other vehicles.
	Finally, can the Minister tell us what progress is being made in the talks, which I believe have been going on, between the Department for Transport and the Office of Fair Trading to allow measures that benefit passengers to be exempted from the controls of competition law? I am particularly concerned about through tickets, joint tickets and joint timetables, which have clear benefits for the user and are essential to a truly integrated transport system. Many of these questions must be cleared up before smart cards are introduced. Perhaps the Minister will share with the House the Government's latest thinking on this issue.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for giving me the opportunity to speak from these Benches on an issue that is of huge significance to many. Buses are much more than just a means of transport; they provide a crucial lifeline, helping to tackle both economic and social exclusion. Buses in rural areas, in particular, are often the only means that many of the most disadvantaged in our society have to engage with others. I live in Cornwall in the village of St. Mawes on the Roseland, and our village would be absolutely lost without its bus.
	Nine out of 10 people who use buses are in the bottom income bracket, and 60 per cent of bus users have no access to cars. If something goes wrong with the bus system, we are allowing the mechanisms that increase social exclusion to continue to operate.
	Subsidies to buses have increased significantly, yet bus use outside London is falling. Over the past decade local bus use declined by 11 per cent, while rail use increased by 18 per cent. This was detailed well already by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market. In 2000, having recognised that those numbers decreased in many previous years, the Government produced a 10-year plan in which they set themselves the target of increasing bus journeys by 10 per cent by 2010. They also said they wished to improve the punctuality of the whole service nationally, which we have also heard about. They set many years' declining bus usage against increased prosperity, increasing car ownership, the increasing costs of bus travel and the falling cost of motoring. Clearly the Government have realised that the target that they set themselves was unattainable; it has already been revised twice and we now have a target not only for buses, but for bus and light rail, increasing usage by 12 per cent in every region.
	At this stage, like the noble Lord, Lord Snape, I had expected to find myself in the unusual position of joining with the Government in refusing to want to go back to the pre-1986 system. But I have not got this lovely opportunity of being able to agree with the Government because it has not come up in the way in which I thought it was going to. So, at this late hour, rather than rambling on with the speech that I have prepared here, noble Lords may be happy to know that I have decided to confine myself to commenting on the London system that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mentioned right at the beginning of his speech.
	We have mentioned the virtues of the system that operates in London. Yes, bus use is up. But fares are also up—by 35 per cent. That figure hides the cost of the concessionary scheme that Mr Livingstone has put in place. Indeed, local authorities across the capital have noticed that every year, they are told how much they have to provide for the extra-concessionary scheme. That figure usually comes off other budgets, which provide services to the most vulnerable, such as looking after children or adult social care, clearly damaging authorities' ability to care for people at risk.
	The Oyster cards may seem attractive but some of the pricing irregularities are worth noting. For no good reason, the Mayor has done away with the family railcard, so it now costs a family of two adults and two children travelling one stop something like £9.10, rather than the £3.40 that it cost them less than three months ago. The paragon of virtue that London has been described as must be very carefully considered before we go too far in saying that everything in London is wonderful and everything elsewhere is not. It is not true that it would be possible to duplicate the London experience elsewhere and there are several reasons for that: the demographics, the population density and the size of London, the limited availability of workplace parking, and the historic use of rail and tube networks, which are part of the general public transport system.
	The arguments seem to be not so much in favour in London. Many of the other arguments that I have heard here today and the questions that have been put to the Minister should be the focus of this question tonight. Therefore I would prefer to sit down and listen to the Minister answering some of the good questions raised and also say that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, has got an idea—after all, this has been Wales' night in this House.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, identified the progress being made in Wales on the concessionary scheme. It has been the envy of many in England, as it is clearly recognised that the scheme covers a much wider area than any concessionary scheme in England has done. The noble Lord will have taken enormous delight in the Budget Statement today, which indicates that by 2008 we intend to make the resources available for a nationwide scheme in England. As I recall, England is marginally longer than Wales, north to south; and at its widest part, it is also broader. He will recognise that England is not just catching up; the necessary resources devoted to that endeavour are much greater than what has been demanded in Wales. We are grateful for the trailblazing by the National Assembly on this.
	We take pride that concessionary fares mean a great deal to those sections of our community who wish to travel but have very limited resources. That also applies to young people. The House will recognise that we are seeking to encourage at local level the extension of schemes for young people, and many local authorities have such schemes. For those aged over 16 in full-time education, that has been the case for some time now. Those are all positive aspects.
	The debate of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is on the bus industry outside London, and he is entitled to a reply. I will reply to that in a moment. First, I might clear the ground a little. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, said that the industry revolves around London as a model, and her difficulty is with the London scheme. Her difficulties with the London scheme are not the same as mine. She is critical of the London scheme; I look on it as a model for the nation. Of course, London has huge advantages in being able to deliver its scheme in terms of management of the roads system. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Snape and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that management of the road system is crucial to the effective deployment of buses.
	We do not have any proposals as yet to give passenger transport executives highway authority powers along their major bus corridors, although I recognise that both noble Lords speaking strongly on behalf of the bus industry say that this would be an important contribution to their position. My noble friend indicated what a problem it is in a city such as Birmingham when the local authority takes a view entirely contrary to what I see as the interests of the bus industry. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is considering a number of options for changes in city governance, which relates to transport, so we are looking at those. It will not be enough to satisfy either my noble friend or the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, this evening, but it is an indication that we are taking the point seriously.
	It should be recognised that car ownership in London is lower than in the rest of the country. In a very real sense, Londoners are more dependent on the bus; or the other way around. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would emphasise that if you provide buses people do not need recourse to the car. It is a chicken-and-egg situation. London is inevitably sui generis simply by its sheer size and range. It is not easy to extrapolate London provision elsewhere in the country.
	I hope that I can share with the House the disappointment that some of us felt about the Edinburgh vote against the congestion charge. If there is one dimension of traffic management that has been hugely successful in London, it has been the congestion charge. In a city known for the acumen and intelligence of its citizens, they rejected it. I think that was a setback for those of us who thought that London had set a pattern which might be followed elsewhere. These are local decisions and local authorities must take their own responsibility. The noble lord, Lord Bradshaw, knows only too well that quite a few of these issues revolve around local authority decisions. It is the same with regard to the question he asked me about car parking and the way in which local authorities organise those arrangements. Councillors are elected to run local authorities by the people who live within them, and they make the decisions on these things. I recognise the point that he is making—that the question of car parking and how you organise the traffic on the roads is absolutely crucial to bus usage. We all recognise that whereas London has seen a very significant increase in bus usage, it is not the case elsewhere, although there are achievements. Oxford, Brighton and York—the noble Lord will know Oxford well enough—have had rather a good record in recent years.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I understand that entirely. But it of course merely draws a contrast between the area where we see very substantial increase in bus usage—namely, London—and the differences that obtain elsewhere in the country. That does not alter the fact that pressure should be developed to recognise that cities and towns that are developing bus usage have an integrated policy where the pieces come together in terms of road usage—and it does relate to car parking as well, and in places that are much smaller than cities. Kidderminster increased its bus usage by 10 per cent and Bedford by 16 per cent. Exeter is a city, though not a large one, and it increased usage by 12 per cent. So it is the case that where intelligent strategies are deployed, bus usage does increase significantly.
	The noble Lord raised a number of issues in his speech. I hope he feels I have dealt with the concessionary fares issue. I certainly recognise that we need to target investment to stimulate the bus industry. Kickstart aims to pump-prime new services or service improvements which contribute to the Government's overall objectives of increasing bus patronage. Funding is given to projects that have a clear prospect of becoming commercially viable or otherwise fully self-sustaining. We have 43 such schemes in action at present. Kickstart cost a total of £20 million last year. Those are limited initiatives but they are also an indication of how we can encourage areas that are taking the issue of bus usage seriously. We can give some help there.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am sorry if I have caused the noble Lord to miss his bus, but he has a choice between leaving to catch the bus and listening to my reply to the points that he raised. He expressed some disappointment about the development of partnerships. We would have wanted fruitful partnerships. Where they work well they produce such striking results that we would want those partnerships extended. There are several hundred voluntary partnerships at the moment but we have not seen the use of the statutory quality partnership power in the Transport Act 2000, which gives an enforcement role to traffic commissioners. We would like to encourage use of that power and we are going to publish guidance to encourage its use, but it has not yet been taken up, which reflects the response of those on the ground.
	The Transport Act provides a means of introducing franchising outside London in the form of quality contract schemes, as the noble Lord is aware, but that power is not being employed to the extent that we would wish. We are taking steps to make the task less daunting, in terms of the specification drawn up, by issuing guidance and shortening the statutory minimum time between making a scheme and its coming into force. At the moment it is 21 months, which is a long period; we are reducing it to six months.
	We need progress in those areas. We have no illusion in government that the bus industry outside London is not working optimally, as my noble friend Lord Snape will testify. We want to take initiatives to stimulate it, which we are doing through a mixture of funding regulation and, most importantly, partnerships. We will not go back to the system that obtained in the early 1980s. The current framework, which has the potential to deliver more than at present, relies on national government, but it also relies on local government and bus operators to work together for the benefit of us all.
	Today's Budget contained good news; good enough news for me to look the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, in the eye and feel that if I have not quite matched him, I have indicated that we are thinking along the same lines. However, there is a great deal to be done on bus services in the country. We must always bear in mind that, for many people, the bus is the only means of transport and, if it does not run punctually, there are not frequent services or the buses are not up to standard, some of the least well-off in our community are deprived of an essential means of transport. In an age when we all recognise that car use makes such demands on roads, the bus is still a servant of the people, and we must make sure that it is there to be so.